by liberal japonicus
Seems like we are about due for one. Have at it.
376 thoughts on “just another open thread”
Comments are closed.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
by liberal japonicus
Seems like we are about due for one. Have at it.
Comments are closed.
Last year it was a sarcastic joke, now Florida has made it reality:
***They are coming for the dictionaries.***
One Florida school district has now removed dictionaries (namely Merriam-Webster) and encyclopedias from shelves in school libraries. In case of the Merriam-Webster a reason given is that it contains (among other things) the word “sex”.
Last year it was a sarcastic joke, now Florida has made it reality:
***They are coming for the dictionaries.***
One Florida school district has now removed dictionaries (namely Merriam-Webster) and encyclopedias from shelves in school libraries. In case of the Merriam-Webster a reason given is that it contains (among other things) the word “sex”.
Takes me back to my homeschooling parent mindset: there is something wrong with the fact that schooling is compulsory but quality education is not.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.
Texas, surprise surprise.
From the wiki entry:
Takes me back to my homeschooling parent mindset: there is something wrong with the fact that schooling is compulsory but quality education is not.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.
Texas, surprise surprise.
From the wiki entry:
There was a NJ judge, some years back, that ruled against the state on funding issues, bounced back and forth, then ruled:
“I meant what I said,
and I said what I meant.
The schools must be funded.
One hundred percent.”
There was a NJ judge, some years back, that ruled against the state on funding issues, bounced back and forth, then ruled:
“I meant what I said,
and I said what I meant.
The schools must be funded.
One hundred percent.”
@Snarki — I haven’t kept up, but we’ve had similar issues in Maine. They weren’t related to constitutionality, but to following the existing state law about the share the state is supposed to be contributing to local school districts. (Which, when i was last paying attention, the state had never actually managed to do. I could be very out of date on this…)
@Snarki — I haven’t kept up, but we’ve had similar issues in Maine. They weren’t related to constitutionality, but to following the existing state law about the share the state is supposed to be contributing to local school districts. (Which, when i was last paying attention, the state had never actually managed to do. I could be very out of date on this…)
Hartmut, in a similar case recently, nous speculated that this might have been the action of sane librarians/school admin, hoping that the principle of reductio ad absurdum would bring people to their senses. If so, it appears it has not done so yet.
Hartmut, in a similar case recently, nous speculated that this might have been the action of sane librarians/school admin, hoping that the principle of reductio ad absurdum would bring people to their senses. If so, it appears it has not done so yet.
Any timeline that has a “Pres. Trump” in it is immune to reductio ad absurdum.
IIRC, there are now going to be some mathematical proofs that will fail.
Any timeline that has a “Pres. Trump” in it is immune to reductio ad absurdum.
IIRC, there are now going to be some mathematical proofs that will fail.
The news clips I got said it was ‘parents’ again.
Could of course be strawpersons (again) but even in that case it more likely comes from proponents not opponents.
The news clips I got said it was ‘parents’ again.
Could of course be strawpersons (again) but even in that case it more likely comes from proponents not opponents.
Fighting the right wing scream machine: It is a tough row to hoe, I’ll tell you. I was recently bombarded with the FACT that Dr. Anthony Fauci has a net worth north of $10,000,000 conveyed to me in an accusatory tone that made it sound as if it were some telling and terrible outrage.
So I did my own research (danger! danger!).
Once you get past all the right wing rags cited in the initial Google search (there are many) one finds that he and his wife were knocking down over $600,000 per year in salary. So they are doing pretty well, but building up a $10m nest egg over,say 40 years is, to say the least, not some big surprise.
But people take this shit and run with it. We are so fucked.
The only way out is to beat them politically. Beat them until they beg for mercy or shut the fuck up.
Fighting the right wing scream machine: It is a tough row to hoe, I’ll tell you. I was recently bombarded with the FACT that Dr. Anthony Fauci has a net worth north of $10,000,000 conveyed to me in an accusatory tone that made it sound as if it were some telling and terrible outrage.
So I did my own research (danger! danger!).
Once you get past all the right wing rags cited in the initial Google search (there are many) one finds that he and his wife were knocking down over $600,000 per year in salary. So they are doing pretty well, but building up a $10m nest egg over,say 40 years is, to say the least, not some big surprise.
But people take this shit and run with it. We are so fucked.
The only way out is to beat them politically. Beat them until they beg for mercy or shut the fuck up.
So, Dr Fauci being worth $10 million is an outrage, but TIFG being (supposedly) worth over 100 times that is not? Good to know.
Although I suppose that having inherited wealth, rather than actually earned it, makes a difference.
So, Dr Fauci being worth $10 million is an outrage, but TIFG being (supposedly) worth over 100 times that is not? Good to know.
Although I suppose that having inherited wealth, rather than actually earned it, makes a difference.
The only way out is to beat them politically. Beat them until they beg for mercy or shut the fuck up.
Yes I said yes I will Yes. (Ulysses joke)
Or, to put it another way, bobbyp: FYLTGE, with all possible force.
The only way out is to beat them politically. Beat them until they beg for mercy or shut the fuck up.
Yes I said yes I will Yes. (Ulysses joke)
Or, to put it another way, bobbyp: FYLTGE, with all possible force.
What is TIFG? Thanks.
(Acronyms are my nemesis, and yes, I googled it but it’s surely not The Independent Funeral Group, right?)
What is TIFG? Thanks.
(Acronyms are my nemesis, and yes, I googled it but it’s surely not The Independent Funeral Group, right?)
maybe:
The Ill-Fitting Garibaldis
lol
maybe:
The Ill-Fitting Garibaldis
lol
The Indicted Former Guy.
The Indicted Former Guy.
thanks
thanks
If the forecast is accurate, the difference between the outside temperature and where I’ll have the thermostat set will be 84 degrees tonight. Pretty good challenge for the insulation and furnace. Anyone who’s anywhere that’s close to that, stay safe.
Small local Colorado cultural note… The National Western Stock Show is held in Denver in mid-January every year. A big arctic blast and snow in mid-January occurs often enough to be referred to as “stock show weather.”
If the forecast is accurate, the difference between the outside temperature and where I’ll have the thermostat set will be 84 degrees tonight. Pretty good challenge for the insulation and furnace. Anyone who’s anywhere that’s close to that, stay safe.
Small local Colorado cultural note… The National Western Stock Show is held in Denver in mid-January every year. A big arctic blast and snow in mid-January occurs often enough to be referred to as “stock show weather.”
“stock show weather”
Reminds me of how, for decades, the first week of September was 1) the California state fair, and 2) the only rain between May 1 and late October. Which latter startled people . . . every year!
“stock show weather”
Reminds me of how, for decades, the first week of September was 1) the California state fair, and 2) the only rain between May 1 and late October. Which latter startled people . . . every year!
What is TIFG?
Thank\it’s\Friday\God. Translated from the original dyslexian.
What is TIFG?
Thank\it’s\Friday\God. Translated from the original dyslexian.
I have recently, for no reason I can recall, been getting emails of pieces by someone called Shalom Auslander, of whom I was previously unaware. They are often very funny, and I have a weak spot for anybody who has, like him I gather, rejected any brand of ultra-religious background. I hesitate to link this, since he says in it he is speaking “Jew to Jew”, but it says so much of what I think about the defence of language. I used to argue with sapient about my refusal to call Trump et al Nazis, so it particularly spoke to me on that, but of course it also goes much wider. And, FWIW, I very much liked this, as he lays out the basis of his argument:
the sword of censorship maims none so mortally as the powerless.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/n-word-nazis-shalom-auslander?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I have recently, for no reason I can recall, been getting emails of pieces by someone called Shalom Auslander, of whom I was previously unaware. They are often very funny, and I have a weak spot for anybody who has, like him I gather, rejected any brand of ultra-religious background. I hesitate to link this, since he says in it he is speaking “Jew to Jew”, but it says so much of what I think about the defence of language. I used to argue with sapient about my refusal to call Trump et al Nazis, so it particularly spoke to me on that, but of course it also goes much wider. And, FWIW, I very much liked this, as he lays out the basis of his argument:
the sword of censorship maims none so mortally as the powerless.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/n-word-nazis-shalom-auslander?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Thank you for an excellent article. And funny, too, while heart-breakingly serious.
I am concerned about “antisemitism” being overused, especially since some of the current overuse is to distort its meaning into something it doesn’t mean at all.
Changing the meaning of a word is different than overusing a word so that the word no longer has an effect. The latter is the crying “Wolf!” phenomenon. The former is more like crying “wolf” at the sight of the sheep dog.
Both are behaviors with negative consequences; however, using a word that is one size up from a perhaps more accurate word is not really crying “Wolf!” and not really changing the meaning of the word. It seems more like legitimate conversation based on interpretations of the precise meaning. A discussion point is raised.
Are the killings in Gaza a war crime? Mass murder? Necessary collateral damage? Genocide? Justifiable because it’s just Palestinians dying, so what? Justifiable for defense?
Is using “genocide” crying wolf? Or changing the meaning of “genocide” into something else? Or does the use of “genocide” create a discussion of exactly how bad the killings are on the scale from collateral damage to genocide with mass murder and war crimes as stops along the way?
But maybe I’m splitting hairs.
Probably I’m splitting hairs.
Anyway, very thoughtful and useful article. Thank you.
Thank you for an excellent article. And funny, too, while heart-breakingly serious.
I am concerned about “antisemitism” being overused, especially since some of the current overuse is to distort its meaning into something it doesn’t mean at all.
Changing the meaning of a word is different than overusing a word so that the word no longer has an effect. The latter is the crying “Wolf!” phenomenon. The former is more like crying “wolf” at the sight of the sheep dog.
Both are behaviors with negative consequences; however, using a word that is one size up from a perhaps more accurate word is not really crying “Wolf!” and not really changing the meaning of the word. It seems more like legitimate conversation based on interpretations of the precise meaning. A discussion point is raised.
Are the killings in Gaza a war crime? Mass murder? Necessary collateral damage? Genocide? Justifiable because it’s just Palestinians dying, so what? Justifiable for defense?
Is using “genocide” crying wolf? Or changing the meaning of “genocide” into something else? Or does the use of “genocide” create a discussion of exactly how bad the killings are on the scale from collateral damage to genocide with mass murder and war crimes as stops along the way?
But maybe I’m splitting hairs.
Probably I’m splitting hairs.
Anyway, very thoughtful and useful article. Thank you.
It’s been pretty quiet around here the last few days, and I’ve been busy with the start of a new quarter and juggling three sections of a research writing class. Best I can do for the moment to contribute is to drop this link in for grist:
https://www.humanities.uci.edu/news/rethinking-conflict
Emphasizing the figure of the Mizrahi Jew, Mor challenges the duality and presumed symmetry of the “conflict” framework. This framework, she argues, misleadingly implies an equivalent, zero-sum competition between the Israeli colonizers and the Palestinian colonized. She further grapples with the complex status of Mizrahi Jews as both colonizers and victims of displacement.
“My grandfather, like many other Iraqi Jews of his generation, did not want to leave Iraq. In order to push the Jewish community out of Iraq, Israel had to resort to shady deals with the Iraqi government and to heavy pressures to make the city appear unsafe,” she explains. “This is where the symmetry argument crumbles, for it was in fact the same cause, the Zionist regime in then nascent Israel, that was largely responsible for both displacements, of Palestinians from Palestine and of Mizrahi Jews from the Arab world.”
The book calls for a triangulation, considering the involvement not just of Jews and Arabs, but of European and non-European Jews, various Palestinian groups (exiled Palestinians, Palestinians within 1948-borders Israel who are its citizens and those in the Occupied Territories) and, crucially, European imperialism.
Have not read the book, do not know Mor personally, but it sounds like an interesting, timely book drawing from a rich context.
It’s been pretty quiet around here the last few days, and I’ve been busy with the start of a new quarter and juggling three sections of a research writing class. Best I can do for the moment to contribute is to drop this link in for grist:
https://www.humanities.uci.edu/news/rethinking-conflict
Emphasizing the figure of the Mizrahi Jew, Mor challenges the duality and presumed symmetry of the “conflict” framework. This framework, she argues, misleadingly implies an equivalent, zero-sum competition between the Israeli colonizers and the Palestinian colonized. She further grapples with the complex status of Mizrahi Jews as both colonizers and victims of displacement.
“My grandfather, like many other Iraqi Jews of his generation, did not want to leave Iraq. In order to push the Jewish community out of Iraq, Israel had to resort to shady deals with the Iraqi government and to heavy pressures to make the city appear unsafe,” she explains. “This is where the symmetry argument crumbles, for it was in fact the same cause, the Zionist regime in then nascent Israel, that was largely responsible for both displacements, of Palestinians from Palestine and of Mizrahi Jews from the Arab world.”
The book calls for a triangulation, considering the involvement not just of Jews and Arabs, but of European and non-European Jews, various Palestinian groups (exiled Palestinians, Palestinians within 1948-borders Israel who are its citizens and those in the Occupied Territories) and, crucially, European imperialism.
Have not read the book, do not know Mor personally, but it sounds like an interesting, timely book drawing from a rich context.
Another publishing icon strikes out.
“That is why it is an absolute tragedy to hear on Friday that some 70 years after its first iconic cover, which featured future baseball Hall of Famer Eddie Matthews, Sports Illustrated may soon be dead. We are not talking about a typical reduction in talent or a decline in quality. (Layoffs have plagued the magazine in recent years. Then there was the recent scandal where Sports Illustrated was accused of using artificial-intelligence-generated stories and fake bylines and eschewing journalism for poorly worded drek around which to frame ads.) The Arena Group, which had a license from Authentic Brands Group to publish SI, is laying off a huge portion of the writers and editors. Authentic Brands Group bought the magazine for $110 million in 2019.”
Why the news of Sports Illustrated’s downfall hits me so hard: This was to be the year that my son graduated from Sports Illustrated Kids to the real thing. When I was a boy, I thought the magazine would always be around.
Another publishing icon strikes out.
“That is why it is an absolute tragedy to hear on Friday that some 70 years after its first iconic cover, which featured future baseball Hall of Famer Eddie Matthews, Sports Illustrated may soon be dead. We are not talking about a typical reduction in talent or a decline in quality. (Layoffs have plagued the magazine in recent years. Then there was the recent scandal where Sports Illustrated was accused of using artificial-intelligence-generated stories and fake bylines and eschewing journalism for poorly worded drek around which to frame ads.) The Arena Group, which had a license from Authentic Brands Group to publish SI, is laying off a huge portion of the writers and editors. Authentic Brands Group bought the magazine for $110 million in 2019.”
Why the news of Sports Illustrated’s downfall hits me so hard: This was to be the year that my son graduated from Sports Illustrated Kids to the real thing. When I was a boy, I thought the magazine would always be around.
One of Cain’s Laws™ says that any situation where it is easier to become rich by shuffling financial papers than by providing the underlying goods and services will end badly. The SI situation would seem like a good example: the group that actually does the publishing pays someone else $15M per year to license the Sports Illustrated name.
One of Cain’s Laws™ says that any situation where it is easier to become rich by shuffling financial papers than by providing the underlying goods and services will end badly. The SI situation would seem like a good example: the group that actually does the publishing pays someone else $15M per year to license the Sports Illustrated name.
From today’s NYT, this is one of my gift links on various subjects we have discussed here (as well as, if only tangentially, the appeal of Trump to some sections of the population):
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/20/opinion/trauma-pain-assault.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PE0.wmlb.fZda0aMCqKTR&smid=url-share
One gauge of how many Americans are struggling is that average weekly nonsupervisory wages, a metric for blue-collar earnings, were lower in the first half of 2023 than they had been (adjusted for inflation) in the first half of 1969. That’s not a misprint.
Another: If the federal minimum wage of 1968 had kept pace with inflation and productivity, it would now be more than $25 an hour. Instead, it’s stuck at $7.25.
***
The Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton popularized the term “deaths of despair” for the tumbling life expectancy among working-class Americans since 2010, but the tragedy goes far beyond the staggering mortality. For each person who dies from drugs, alcohol and suicide, many others are mired in addiction and heap pain on their families.
***
The challenges are particularly acute for Black and Native American men. Native American males have a life expectancy of only 61.5 years, shorter than men in India, Egypt and Venezuela. And the median wage of Black men in 2020 was only 55 percent of that of white men, a smaller share than it had been in the late 1960s.
***
“Capitalism in America today is not working for the two-thirds of adults who do not have a B.A.,” Professor Deaton said in a lecture in Amsterdam. When a Nobel Prize-winning economist warns that capitalism is failing most Americans, it’s worth paying attention.
From today’s NYT, this is one of my gift links on various subjects we have discussed here (as well as, if only tangentially, the appeal of Trump to some sections of the population):
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/20/opinion/trauma-pain-assault.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PE0.wmlb.fZda0aMCqKTR&smid=url-share
One gauge of how many Americans are struggling is that average weekly nonsupervisory wages, a metric for blue-collar earnings, were lower in the first half of 2023 than they had been (adjusted for inflation) in the first half of 1969. That’s not a misprint.
Another: If the federal minimum wage of 1968 had kept pace with inflation and productivity, it would now be more than $25 an hour. Instead, it’s stuck at $7.25.
***
The Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton popularized the term “deaths of despair” for the tumbling life expectancy among working-class Americans since 2010, but the tragedy goes far beyond the staggering mortality. For each person who dies from drugs, alcohol and suicide, many others are mired in addiction and heap pain on their families.
***
The challenges are particularly acute for Black and Native American men. Native American males have a life expectancy of only 61.5 years, shorter than men in India, Egypt and Venezuela. And the median wage of Black men in 2020 was only 55 percent of that of white men, a smaller share than it had been in the late 1960s.
***
“Capitalism in America today is not working for the two-thirds of adults who do not have a B.A.,” Professor Deaton said in a lecture in Amsterdam. When a Nobel Prize-winning economist warns that capitalism is failing most Americans, it’s worth paying attention.
One gauge of how many Americans are struggling is that average weekly nonsupervisory wages, a metric for blue-collar earnings, were lower in the first half of 2023 than they had been (adjusted for inflation) in the first half of 1969. That’s not a misprint.
Another: If the federal minimum wage of 1968 had kept pace with inflation and productivity, it would now be more than $25 an hour. Instead, it’s stuck at $7.25.
I have written about this here using a simple-minded comparison of college costs vs minimum wage in exactly 1968 (when I left home for college) vs. now.
Have been super busy but will try to respond to this and to the last few recent comments when I get a break. They’re all kind of connected. (Of course.)
One gauge of how many Americans are struggling is that average weekly nonsupervisory wages, a metric for blue-collar earnings, were lower in the first half of 2023 than they had been (adjusted for inflation) in the first half of 1969. That’s not a misprint.
Another: If the federal minimum wage of 1968 had kept pace with inflation and productivity, it would now be more than $25 an hour. Instead, it’s stuck at $7.25.
I have written about this here using a simple-minded comparison of college costs vs minimum wage in exactly 1968 (when I left home for college) vs. now.
Have been super busy but will try to respond to this and to the last few recent comments when I get a break. They’re all kind of connected. (Of course.)
They throw in productivity, but it distorts the number. Which makes the 1968 number in current dollars closer to $13.75. it’s worth noting that historically 1968 was the peak value of the minimum wage. So comparing it is also a little bit of sleight of hand. All those numbers are in Wikipedia.
Mostly to say that the large and growing number of places that have targeted $15 have it about right.
They throw in productivity, but it distorts the number. Which makes the 1968 number in current dollars closer to $13.75. it’s worth noting that historically 1968 was the peak value of the minimum wage. So comparing it is also a little bit of sleight of hand. All those numbers are in Wikipedia.
Mostly to say that the large and growing number of places that have targeted $15 have it about right.
They throw in productivity, but it distorts the number.
Not exactly. The assertion is this: If the minimum wage was tied to productivity increases, then the minimum wage would be “X” (this is standard marginal product analysis in free market economic theory) which is different than just viewing minimum wages in inflation adjusted terms over the last 50 years.
The public policy implications of the observed wage lag (and resultant wealth disparities) are fairly obvious, but conservatives want a tilted playing field where regular workers are both poor and powerless. As with culture war issues the cruelty is the point. It is a feature, not a bug of the right wing project.
They throw in productivity, but it distorts the number.
Not exactly. The assertion is this: If the minimum wage was tied to productivity increases, then the minimum wage would be “X” (this is standard marginal product analysis in free market economic theory) which is different than just viewing minimum wages in inflation adjusted terms over the last 50 years.
The public policy implications of the observed wage lag (and resultant wealth disparities) are fairly obvious, but conservatives want a tilted playing field where regular workers are both poor and powerless. As with culture war issues the cruelty is the point. It is a feature, not a bug of the right wing project.
For those of you who enjoy looking at charts:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1065466/real-nominal-value-minimum-wage-us/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1056023/value-minimum-wage-grew-productivity-us/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20minimum%20wage,has%20remained%20unchanged%20since%202009.
Have a good day!
For those of you who enjoy looking at charts:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1065466/real-nominal-value-minimum-wage-us/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1056023/value-minimum-wage-grew-productivity-us/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20minimum%20wage,has%20remained%20unchanged%20since%202009.
Have a good day!
I know many here, if not all, will be rather sympathetic to this idea:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/jan/21/how-much-personal-wealth-is-enough-ingrid-robeyns-limitarianism
For Ingrid Robeyns, a professor of philosophy and economics at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, the urgency of that question is long overdue. Not only does Robeyns argue for a limit to wealth, she is prepared to put a number on it. Or actually two numbers: the first a political ambition, the second an appeal to ethical conscience. The first is this: “In a country with a socioeconomic profile similar to the Netherlands, where I live, we should aim to create a society in which no one has more than €10m. There shouldn’t be any decamillionaires.” That aspiration, what Robeyns calls a realistic “political threshold”, an outcome for policymakers to strive for, comes with a second figure attached, which is more an appeal to collective morality. “I contend,” Robeyns argues, “that for people who live in a society with a solid pension system, the ethical limit [on wealth] will be around 1 million pounds, dollars or euros per person.” Those limits, she suggests, are not only the ones that would create the fairest and most effective kinds of society, but they represent the maximum levels that also would make individuals – including billionaires and decamillionaires – happiest (just rewatch Succession if you don’t agree).
Robeyns has a name for this philosophy, an argument that she hopes can become a movement. She calls it, in the title of a new book, Limitarianism. Robeyns, 51, grew up in Belgium and gained her PhD at Cambridge under Amartya Sen, the guru of development economics. While most of her academic peers were committed to work on poverty reduction, however, Robeyns has always been focused on the flipside of inequality – the effects of grossly excessive private wealth on our precarious public sphere and our unravelling democracy and environment. Levelling up, she argues, will never be possible without some very serious levelling down. George Monbiot, in a Guardian article praising Robeyns’s work, called that latter, urgent truism, still “perhaps the most blasphemous idea in contemporary discourse”.
I know many here, if not all, will be rather sympathetic to this idea:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/jan/21/how-much-personal-wealth-is-enough-ingrid-robeyns-limitarianism
For Ingrid Robeyns, a professor of philosophy and economics at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, the urgency of that question is long overdue. Not only does Robeyns argue for a limit to wealth, she is prepared to put a number on it. Or actually two numbers: the first a political ambition, the second an appeal to ethical conscience. The first is this: “In a country with a socioeconomic profile similar to the Netherlands, where I live, we should aim to create a society in which no one has more than €10m. There shouldn’t be any decamillionaires.” That aspiration, what Robeyns calls a realistic “political threshold”, an outcome for policymakers to strive for, comes with a second figure attached, which is more an appeal to collective morality. “I contend,” Robeyns argues, “that for people who live in a society with a solid pension system, the ethical limit [on wealth] will be around 1 million pounds, dollars or euros per person.” Those limits, she suggests, are not only the ones that would create the fairest and most effective kinds of society, but they represent the maximum levels that also would make individuals – including billionaires and decamillionaires – happiest (just rewatch Succession if you don’t agree).
Robeyns has a name for this philosophy, an argument that she hopes can become a movement. She calls it, in the title of a new book, Limitarianism. Robeyns, 51, grew up in Belgium and gained her PhD at Cambridge under Amartya Sen, the guru of development economics. While most of her academic peers were committed to work on poverty reduction, however, Robeyns has always been focused on the flipside of inequality – the effects of grossly excessive private wealth on our precarious public sphere and our unravelling democracy and environment. Levelling up, she argues, will never be possible without some very serious levelling down. George Monbiot, in a Guardian article praising Robeyns’s work, called that latter, urgent truism, still “perhaps the most blasphemous idea in contemporary discourse”.
I know many here, if not all, will be rather sympathetic to this idea
Countme in. Thanks.
I know many here, if not all, will be rather sympathetic to this idea
Countme in. Thanks.
I know many here, if not all, will be rather sympathetic to this idea
Not me! Some counterarguments.
“Fix Poverty, Not Inequality
Never mind that some of the most provocative data on inequality is sketchy (economist Thomas Piketty’s work suffers from close scrutiny) and inequality, at least in the U.S., appears to be declining. In fact, people’s well-being doesn’t depend on the gap between their income and that of the wealthy; it depends on their purchasing power.
“Poverty and inequality are different things, but they are often conflated in political discussions,” point out the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards and Ryan Bourne. “High poverty levels, which are clearly undesirable, are often caused by bad policies, such as a lack of open markets and equal treatment. Wealth inequality is different—it cannot be judged good or bad by itself because it may reflect either a growing economy that is lifting all boats or a shrinking economy caused by corruption.”
To focus on what’s really important—reducing poverty—we need to emphasize the “liberalism, in the free-market European sense” that brought hundreds of millions of people a measure of prosperity in a very short period of time. That means rejecting Oxfam’s toxic prescription for an empowered state that’s more likely to increase suffering by meddling in the lives of people who really should be left alone to do their best for themselves. And if some people become trillionaires along the way, good for them.”
The World Could Soon Have Its First Trillionaire. Good!: A new report brings remarkable economic illiteracy to its focus on poverty and inequality.
I know many here, if not all, will be rather sympathetic to this idea
Not me! Some counterarguments.
“Fix Poverty, Not Inequality
Never mind that some of the most provocative data on inequality is sketchy (economist Thomas Piketty’s work suffers from close scrutiny) and inequality, at least in the U.S., appears to be declining. In fact, people’s well-being doesn’t depend on the gap between their income and that of the wealthy; it depends on their purchasing power.
“Poverty and inequality are different things, but they are often conflated in political discussions,” point out the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards and Ryan Bourne. “High poverty levels, which are clearly undesirable, are often caused by bad policies, such as a lack of open markets and equal treatment. Wealth inequality is different—it cannot be judged good or bad by itself because it may reflect either a growing economy that is lifting all boats or a shrinking economy caused by corruption.”
To focus on what’s really important—reducing poverty—we need to emphasize the “liberalism, in the free-market European sense” that brought hundreds of millions of people a measure of prosperity in a very short period of time. That means rejecting Oxfam’s toxic prescription for an empowered state that’s more likely to increase suffering by meddling in the lives of people who really should be left alone to do their best for themselves. And if some people become trillionaires along the way, good for them.”
The World Could Soon Have Its First Trillionaire. Good!: A new report brings remarkable economic illiteracy to its focus on poverty and inequality.
The problem with measuring the personal minimum wage against productivity is simple. One is a measure of personal income, the other is the measure of the economy as a whole divided by what?
Meaning productivity in the economy actually gets chewed up by other income factors, not the least of which is the doubling of the work force since 1968.
The first chart is a measure of the buying power of the minimum wage. The second chart actually measures nothing.
The problem with measuring the personal minimum wage against productivity is simple. One is a measure of personal income, the other is the measure of the economy as a whole divided by what?
Meaning productivity in the economy actually gets chewed up by other income factors, not the least of which is the doubling of the work force since 1968.
The first chart is a measure of the buying power of the minimum wage. The second chart actually measures nothing.
It seems to me, on a quick skim of the Reason piece, that they may have switched from a discussion of wealth inequality, to one of income inequality, and used that as justification to discount the other position.
Are any of y’all seeing this too, or am I just reading through too quickly.
Piketty grounds his work in property ownership for a reason. He’s concerned with wealth concentration, not income inequality. I took Robeyn’s work as also being concerned with wealth rather than with income.
Again, am I making unwarranted assumptions here? If so, please elucidate.
It seems to me, on a quick skim of the Reason piece, that they may have switched from a discussion of wealth inequality, to one of income inequality, and used that as justification to discount the other position.
Are any of y’all seeing this too, or am I just reading through too quickly.
Piketty grounds his work in property ownership for a reason. He’s concerned with wealth concentration, not income inequality. I took Robeyn’s work as also being concerned with wealth rather than with income.
Again, am I making unwarranted assumptions here? If so, please elucidate.
The second chart actually measures nothing.
Actually, productivity growth tends to swamp the demographics in the long run, all things being equal.
Please be so kind as to explain to us how US GNP is governed solely or even mostly by labor force population growth. Your hypothesis would project a GNP (real terms) of about $10 trillion in 2021 based on its doubling due to labor force growth also doubling (GNP was about $5 trillion in 1968).
In fact, real GNP in 2021 approached $20 trillion. How do you explain the difference?
Population growth is a big factor in GNP growth, but dismissing productivity growth is simply wrong headed—but it does go nicely with claims that Social Security will “go broke” any day now.
The second chart actually measures nothing.
Actually, productivity growth tends to swamp the demographics in the long run, all things being equal.
Please be so kind as to explain to us how US GNP is governed solely or even mostly by labor force population growth. Your hypothesis would project a GNP (real terms) of about $10 trillion in 2021 based on its doubling due to labor force growth also doubling (GNP was about $5 trillion in 1968).
In fact, real GNP in 2021 approached $20 trillion. How do you explain the difference?
Population growth is a big factor in GNP growth, but dismissing productivity growth is simply wrong headed—but it does go nicely with claims that Social Security will “go broke” any day now.
A squib from Dean Baker on productivity:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/07/economy-useconomicgrowth
Off for a walk. Have a good one.
A squib from Dean Baker on productivity:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/07/economy-useconomicgrowth
Off for a walk. Have a good one.
I took Robeyn’s work as also being concerned with wealth rather than with income.
Yup. From later in the article I linked:
For society to pursue these aims – as it eventually must – Robeyns argues that a radical reform of taxation to concentrate on wealth rather than income is clearly necessary. She makes the case that inheritance is the ultimate non-meritocratic advantage, and has to be largely a collective, not a familial benefit.
I took Robeyn’s work as also being concerned with wealth rather than with income.
Yup. From later in the article I linked:
For society to pursue these aims – as it eventually must – Robeyns argues that a radical reform of taxation to concentrate on wealth rather than income is clearly necessary. She makes the case that inheritance is the ultimate non-meritocratic advantage, and has to be largely a collective, not a familial benefit.
Bobby,
Your numbers are good. The workforce doubled plus an almost 100% increase in real income of the workforce when you count benefits increases. Productivity grew by approximately 4 times over that time. Accounting for flat overall simple wage growth per person despite productivity gains
I did say “in large part” because productivity impacts and it’s impacted by a number of factors. It just is not a proxy to measure minimum wage by.
Bobby,
Your numbers are good. The workforce doubled plus an almost 100% increase in real income of the workforce when you count benefits increases. Productivity grew by approximately 4 times over that time. Accounting for flat overall simple wage growth per person despite productivity gains
I did say “in large part” because productivity impacts and it’s impacted by a number of factors. It just is not a proxy to measure minimum wage by.
Okay, I did some work to try to get clear of the usual conservative thinktank pushback against Piketty to try to find something that actually engages with what Piketty is trying to understand, and not merely looking for flaws in his analytical models. This piece from the Boston Review seems like a good start.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/marshall-steinbaum-beyond-piketty/
It’s hard to pick a representative excerpt here, because Steinbaum does a good job of supporting his argument and building towards his conclusion. You really do need the whole of it to see the outlines of why he thinks Piketty may represent a sea-change even when Steinbaum accepts the criticisms of Piketty’s analysis.
(Same disclaimers apply here: I’m skimming, and I’m out of my depth and having to rely upon the assurances of those with more experience in the discipline.)
Okay, I did some work to try to get clear of the usual conservative thinktank pushback against Piketty to try to find something that actually engages with what Piketty is trying to understand, and not merely looking for flaws in his analytical models. This piece from the Boston Review seems like a good start.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/marshall-steinbaum-beyond-piketty/
It’s hard to pick a representative excerpt here, because Steinbaum does a good job of supporting his argument and building towards his conclusion. You really do need the whole of it to see the outlines of why he thinks Piketty may represent a sea-change even when Steinbaum accepts the criticisms of Piketty’s analysis.
(Same disclaimers apply here: I’m skimming, and I’m out of my depth and having to rely upon the assurances of those with more experience in the discipline.)
I took Robeyn’s work as also being concerned with wealth rather than with income.
The link, although I couldn’t find a quote in my fast read of the article, said “how much … is enough”? It seems to me the “Enough” is the critical point.
At the low end, money is super important. You need enough to put food in your belly, clothes on your back, and a roof over your head.** As your income rises, you get to things that are still necessities in the modern world, albeit less critical ones. And you start looking at luxuries (defined here as “not necessities”).
But at some point you max out. You have all your necessities covered. You have funds set aside for emergencies. You have reasonable progress towards funding your retirement. You have a sufficient number and varieties of luxuries that, if you get another, it essentially means you don’t have time to enjoy both it and all the ones you already have. Time being the one thing you can’t buy more of — pauper or prince, there’s only 24 hours in a day.
At that point, you have enough. There is simply no economic reason for more. For higher income. For more wealth. The only reason is to be able to say, to those who have no clue what you do or why it might be significant, “See, I’m better than you because I’m paid/worth more!” In other words, it’s just a dick measuring contest.
At that point, I see on reason not to tax income at close to 100%. You only need more to impress others. And you can do that with your pre-tax pay.
Similarly with wealth. Once you’ve got all the luxuries you have time for, you really don’t need more. Even if you’re driven by a need to turn your kids into life-long parisites, there’s still a limit to how much you need. At which point, inheritance taxes aren’t doing anyone any real damage either.
Note that none of this is mandating equality of outcomes. Nor does it remove the incentive to work, to innovate, to “get ahead.” No matter what the folks at Reason want to claim.
** Ditto, of course, for those you are personally responsible for supporting.
I took Robeyn’s work as also being concerned with wealth rather than with income.
The link, although I couldn’t find a quote in my fast read of the article, said “how much … is enough”? It seems to me the “Enough” is the critical point.
At the low end, money is super important. You need enough to put food in your belly, clothes on your back, and a roof over your head.** As your income rises, you get to things that are still necessities in the modern world, albeit less critical ones. And you start looking at luxuries (defined here as “not necessities”).
But at some point you max out. You have all your necessities covered. You have funds set aside for emergencies. You have reasonable progress towards funding your retirement. You have a sufficient number and varieties of luxuries that, if you get another, it essentially means you don’t have time to enjoy both it and all the ones you already have. Time being the one thing you can’t buy more of — pauper or prince, there’s only 24 hours in a day.
At that point, you have enough. There is simply no economic reason for more. For higher income. For more wealth. The only reason is to be able to say, to those who have no clue what you do or why it might be significant, “See, I’m better than you because I’m paid/worth more!” In other words, it’s just a dick measuring contest.
At that point, I see on reason not to tax income at close to 100%. You only need more to impress others. And you can do that with your pre-tax pay.
Similarly with wealth. Once you’ve got all the luxuries you have time for, you really don’t need more. Even if you’re driven by a need to turn your kids into life-long parisites, there’s still a limit to how much you need. At which point, inheritance taxes aren’t doing anyone any real damage either.
Note that none of this is mandating equality of outcomes. Nor does it remove the incentive to work, to innovate, to “get ahead.” No matter what the folks at Reason want to claim.
** Ditto, of course, for those you are personally responsible for supporting.
Thanks for the link, nous. Good article. Political economy lives.
Thanks for the link, nous. Good article. Political economy lives.
“Time being the one thing you can’t buy more of — pauper or prince, there’s only 24 hours in a day.”
Which is exactly why Elon Musk needs to move to Mars, so he can get that extra 39.6 minutes per day.
BTW, I read Piketty’s book, and it was a long tough slog through 19th century econometric data, mostly French. Plus 20th century, but by then the data was mostly “professionally” compiled. Not sure that any pundit bitching at Piketty should be taken seriously unless they’re willing to do a detailed reanalysis of that data, and show their work.
“Time being the one thing you can’t buy more of — pauper or prince, there’s only 24 hours in a day.”
Which is exactly why Elon Musk needs to move to Mars, so he can get that extra 39.6 minutes per day.
BTW, I read Piketty’s book, and it was a long tough slog through 19th century econometric data, mostly French. Plus 20th century, but by then the data was mostly “professionally” compiled. Not sure that any pundit bitching at Piketty should be taken seriously unless they’re willing to do a detailed reanalysis of that data, and show their work.
I think Robyens is connected with ‘Doughnut Economics’, an idea developed by Kate Raworth. A link for those who want to dig in with links to more reading at the bottom.
https://sustainable-prosperity.eu/sustainable-prosperity/doughnut-economics/
And this is a Guardian long read from June
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/the-planets-economist-has-kate-raworth-found-a-model-for-sustainable-living
I think Robyens is connected with ‘Doughnut Economics’, an idea developed by Kate Raworth. A link for those who want to dig in with links to more reading at the bottom.
https://sustainable-prosperity.eu/sustainable-prosperity/doughnut-economics/
And this is a Guardian long read from June
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/the-planets-economist-has-kate-raworth-found-a-model-for-sustainable-living
What human beings need most – aside from the basics of air, water, food, clothing, and shelter – is human connection. We have evolved socially and technologically to talk ourselves out of it in far too many ways.
Rethinking economics to get away from growth as the primary goal means understanding the differences between standard of living and quality of life.
Does taking a helicopter to work make people happy? (I wouldn’t know.)
What human beings need most – aside from the basics of air, water, food, clothing, and shelter – is human connection. We have evolved socially and technologically to talk ourselves out of it in far too many ways.
Rethinking economics to get away from growth as the primary goal means understanding the differences between standard of living and quality of life.
Does taking a helicopter to work make people happy? (I wouldn’t know.)
I don’t know about taking a helicopter to work, but the helicopter on Mars makes me happy.
I don’t know about taking a helicopter to work, but the helicopter on Mars makes me happy.
I don’t know about helicopters, but the few times I got to fly somewhere on the corporate jet made me very happy. I understand why the really rich people (or those who can get the company to pop for it) have their own jet. Or at least buy a part of a timeshare arrangement.
I don’t know about helicopters, but the few times I got to fly somewhere on the corporate jet made me very happy. I understand why the really rich people (or those who can get the company to pop for it) have their own jet. Or at least buy a part of a timeshare arrangement.
I’m going to take a risk and speculate that the happiness you get from spending time with your grandchildren would outlast and outweigh the happiness you would get from continually flying on the corporate jet. I guess there’s no reason you couldn’t do both, but once we keep adding similar examples, you’re up against the 24-hours-in-a-day limit wj mentioned. (Maybe the jet would save some of that time.)
I’m going to take a risk and speculate that the happiness you get from spending time with your grandchildren would outlast and outweigh the happiness you would get from continually flying on the corporate jet. I guess there’s no reason you couldn’t do both, but once we keep adding similar examples, you’re up against the 24-hours-in-a-day limit wj mentioned. (Maybe the jet would save some of that time.)
HSH,
The problem with happiness is the fact that you cannot locate it on one of those celestial indifference curves that current economic theory uses as the foundation of their theoretical
and frictionless differential edifice.
I mean, what’s the trade-off? Less happiness?
HSH,
The problem with happiness is the fact that you cannot locate it on one of those celestial indifference curves that current economic theory uses as the foundation of their theoretical
and frictionless differential edifice.
I mean, what’s the trade-off? Less happiness?
On productivity:
A barber charges $20 for a haircut which takes 20 minutes. If he raises the price to $30, does that make him 50% more productive in the “productivity” statistics? If he keeps it at $20, but accomplishes the haircut in 10 minutes, does that make him 100% more “productive”?
On wealth taxes:
If you pay property taxes, you’re paying a “wealth tax”. Every US jurisdiction I ever heard of taxes houses based on their “worth”, not the owner’s income. What’s the difference between “wealth” in a house and “wealth” in a stock portfolio?
–TP
On productivity:
A barber charges $20 for a haircut which takes 20 minutes. If he raises the price to $30, does that make him 50% more productive in the “productivity” statistics? If he keeps it at $20, but accomplishes the haircut in 10 minutes, does that make him 100% more “productive”?
On wealth taxes:
If you pay property taxes, you’re paying a “wealth tax”. Every US jurisdiction I ever heard of taxes houses based on their “worth”, not the owner’s income. What’s the difference between “wealth” in a house and “wealth” in a stock portfolio?
–TP
If you pay property taxes, you’re paying a “wealth tax”.
Property taxes, particularly local property taxes, date back to times when keeping track of income was difficult/impossible. Also, property was typically used to generate income. The blacksmith’s family lived in a building tacked on to the forge. US states generally are shifting away from property taxes to some form of income/sales taxes. Eg, the typical state funds approximately half of local school districts with state money from state income/sales taxes.
If you pay property taxes, you’re paying a “wealth tax”.
Property taxes, particularly local property taxes, date back to times when keeping track of income was difficult/impossible. Also, property was typically used to generate income. The blacksmith’s family lived in a building tacked on to the forge. US states generally are shifting away from property taxes to some form of income/sales taxes. Eg, the typical state funds approximately half of local school districts with state money from state income/sales taxes.
A barber charges $20 for a haircut which takes 20 minutes. If he raises the price to $30, does that make him 50% more productive in the “productivity” statistics? If he keeps it at $20, but accomplishes the haircut in 10 minutes, does that make him 100% more “productive”?
Consider Baumol’s Cost Disease. The classic example — or at least the one I remember today — is fifth grade teachers. Fifth grade teachers teach classes that are about the same size they were 60 years ago, and teach much the same material they did 60 years ago. Why should their salaries reflect productivity gains generally? (I know my answer, but am curious about others’ answers.)
A barber charges $20 for a haircut which takes 20 minutes. If he raises the price to $30, does that make him 50% more productive in the “productivity” statistics? If he keeps it at $20, but accomplishes the haircut in 10 minutes, does that make him 100% more “productive”?
Consider Baumol’s Cost Disease. The classic example — or at least the one I remember today — is fifth grade teachers. Fifth grade teachers teach classes that are about the same size they were 60 years ago, and teach much the same material they did 60 years ago. Why should their salaries reflect productivity gains generally? (I know my answer, but am curious about others’ answers.)
The advantage of property taxes for tax authorities is that it’s very visible and can be photographed.
“Swimming pools matter because the French property tax system is based on the theoretical rental value of a home and its surrounding lands. That means building additions to your house or improving the grounds—for example, by adding a pool—can come with a costly tax bill. According to Ars Technica, a new pool adds about 200 euros to the average French property tax coffers. The General Directorate of Public Finance—their IRS equivalent—believes it could collect as much as 40 million euros in additional taxes when the A.I. tool is deployed across the rest of the country, per The Verge.”
Artificial Intelligence Helps French Tax Authorities Find Thousands of Untaxed Swimming Pools: When taxing authorities get more resources and power, they will find ways to make everyone pay more.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the IRS and other government departments are working on AI methods to audit tax returns and other financial data.
The advantage of property taxes for tax authorities is that it’s very visible and can be photographed.
“Swimming pools matter because the French property tax system is based on the theoretical rental value of a home and its surrounding lands. That means building additions to your house or improving the grounds—for example, by adding a pool—can come with a costly tax bill. According to Ars Technica, a new pool adds about 200 euros to the average French property tax coffers. The General Directorate of Public Finance—their IRS equivalent—believes it could collect as much as 40 million euros in additional taxes when the A.I. tool is deployed across the rest of the country, per The Verge.”
Artificial Intelligence Helps French Tax Authorities Find Thousands of Untaxed Swimming Pools: When taxing authorities get more resources and power, they will find ways to make everyone pay more.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the IRS and other government departments are working on AI methods to audit tax returns and other financial data.
I’m always amazed by how many errors in a comment can be revealed by clicking the post button. 🙁
I’m always amazed by how many errors in a comment can be revealed by clicking the post button. 🙁
I’m always amazed by how many errors in a comment can be revealed by clicking the post button. 🙁
Amen, brother, amen.
I’m always amazed by how many errors in a comment can be revealed by clicking the post button. 🙁
Amen, brother, amen.
Why should their salaries reflect productivity gains generally?
Well, if you goal is to eliminate 5th grade teachers, go for it.
A barber charges $20 for a haircut which takes 20 minutes. If he raises the price to $30, does that make him 50% more productive in the “productivity” statistics?
Only if he still performs the same number of haircuts in the same amount of time. Generally speaking, if you raise your price by 50% your “output” goes down accordingly* (you are a price taker, remember?) and productivity, measured in dollars, is unchanged.
As a bidding contractor, if I continually throw out outrageously high bids, I get no work and my output is zero. I would be a drag on the calculation of overall economic productivity.
*people go somewhere else to get their haircuts, or wear their hair longer!
Why should their salaries reflect productivity gains generally?
Well, if you goal is to eliminate 5th grade teachers, go for it.
A barber charges $20 for a haircut which takes 20 minutes. If he raises the price to $30, does that make him 50% more productive in the “productivity” statistics?
Only if he still performs the same number of haircuts in the same amount of time. Generally speaking, if you raise your price by 50% your “output” goes down accordingly* (you are a price taker, remember?) and productivity, measured in dollars, is unchanged.
As a bidding contractor, if I continually throw out outrageously high bids, I get no work and my output is zero. I would be a drag on the calculation of overall economic productivity.
*people go somewhere else to get their haircuts, or wear their hair longer!
nose bleed tax rates are one way to deal with income and/or wealth inequality. The problem with this is that those who benefit from such a setup are loath to give it up, and generally speaking their wealth comes with a good deal of political clout.
So we should look at restructuring market relations and incentives….incentives that would preclude grabbing that big a piece of the pie to begin with.
Then you don’t have the bloodletting over “confiscating their wealth”, which sounds bad and hurts people’s fee fees.
nose bleed tax rates are one way to deal with income and/or wealth inequality. The problem with this is that those who benefit from such a setup are loath to give it up, and generally speaking their wealth comes with a good deal of political clout.
So we should look at restructuring market relations and incentives….incentives that would preclude grabbing that big a piece of the pie to begin with.
Then you don’t have the bloodletting over “confiscating their wealth”, which sounds bad and hurts people’s fee fees.
Amen, brother, amen.
I was thinking of subcontracting out my posts to AI. This would also raise GNP and help Joe Biden get re-elected.
Win-win.
Amen, brother, amen.
I was thinking of subcontracting out my posts to AI. This would also raise GNP and help Joe Biden get re-elected.
Win-win.
So why bother with taxes *at all*? Why not just create more money? It’s not like we live in olden-times when “money” was a pile of shiny metal. It’s pieces of paper, or increasingly, bits on a computer. With multi-terabyte drives available, I don’t think we’re going to run out of “bits”.
So why not just create money to fund government, and avoid hassling the citizenry?
Answer: ever-increasing money causes huge inflation, right?
Okay, so that tells us something important: the (modern) reason for taxation is to have macroeconomic stability. Which means that the *form* of taxation should be to promote macroeconomic stability: otherwise, why bother?
That is why I’m a staunch advocate of HIGH taxes on excess capital gains, MODERATE taxes on interest/dividends, and LOW taxes on wages: because most economic “bubbles” are caused by investments that have capital gains.
Nobody should listen to me for economic advice, so it’s safe for me to advocate my preferred system. Mostly because 90%+ of the world is still stuck in a medieval understanding of what “money” is, and what “taxes” are for.
</rant>
So why bother with taxes *at all*? Why not just create more money? It’s not like we live in olden-times when “money” was a pile of shiny metal. It’s pieces of paper, or increasingly, bits on a computer. With multi-terabyte drives available, I don’t think we’re going to run out of “bits”.
So why not just create money to fund government, and avoid hassling the citizenry?
Answer: ever-increasing money causes huge inflation, right?
Okay, so that tells us something important: the (modern) reason for taxation is to have macroeconomic stability. Which means that the *form* of taxation should be to promote macroeconomic stability: otherwise, why bother?
That is why I’m a staunch advocate of HIGH taxes on excess capital gains, MODERATE taxes on interest/dividends, and LOW taxes on wages: because most economic “bubbles” are caused by investments that have capital gains.
Nobody should listen to me for economic advice, so it’s safe for me to advocate my preferred system. Mostly because 90%+ of the world is still stuck in a medieval understanding of what “money” is, and what “taxes” are for.
</rant>
U tell ’em, Snarki! The hang ups folks have about “money” is surpassed only by the hang ups they have about sex.
U tell ’em, Snarki! The hang ups folks have about “money” is surpassed only by the hang ups they have about sex.
bobbyp: Only if he still performs the same number of haircuts in the same amount of time. Generally speaking, if you raise your price by 50% your “output” goes down accordingly* (you are a price taker, remember?) and productivity, measured in dollars, is unchanged.
Actually, I was asking about definitions, not practicalities. That’s an “all else being equal” thing. So, does GDP go up, down, or sideways if the barber’s income goes up due to higher price, same number of haircuts? Does his “productivity” go up if he takes half as long to finish a haircut, price and number of haircuts remaining constant? I’m just trying to understand how statistics like “GDP” and “productivity” are defined.
–TP
bobbyp: Only if he still performs the same number of haircuts in the same amount of time. Generally speaking, if you raise your price by 50% your “output” goes down accordingly* (you are a price taker, remember?) and productivity, measured in dollars, is unchanged.
Actually, I was asking about definitions, not practicalities. That’s an “all else being equal” thing. So, does GDP go up, down, or sideways if the barber’s income goes up due to higher price, same number of haircuts? Does his “productivity” go up if he takes half as long to finish a haircut, price and number of haircuts remaining constant? I’m just trying to understand how statistics like “GDP” and “productivity” are defined.
–TP
The classic example — or at least the one I remember today — is fifth grade teachers. Fifth grade teachers teach classes that are about the same size they were 60 years ago, and teach much the same material they did 60 years ago. Why should their salaries reflect productivity gains generally?
Briefly, what kids learn there is just as important to their ability to function as adults as it ever was.** So teachers’ compensation should be tied to the overall economy. As a matter of simplicity, tie it to the per capita GDP.
** Actually, of course, the importance of an educated workforce has substantially increased. So teacher compensation should rise faster than average.
The classic example — or at least the one I remember today — is fifth grade teachers. Fifth grade teachers teach classes that are about the same size they were 60 years ago, and teach much the same material they did 60 years ago. Why should their salaries reflect productivity gains generally?
Briefly, what kids learn there is just as important to their ability to function as adults as it ever was.** So teachers’ compensation should be tied to the overall economy. As a matter of simplicity, tie it to the per capita GDP.
** Actually, of course, the importance of an educated workforce has substantially increased. So teacher compensation should rise faster than average.
Tony,
Labor productivity is “a measure of economic performance that compares the amount of output with the amount of labor used to produce that output” (BLS).
So for this PARTICULAR barber, productivity remains unchanged when the price goes up but the production rate (efficiency) does not change.
If the barber is provided an electric cutter and can perform a haircut in half the time it used to take, then productivity has increased.
Ascertaining an aggregate productivity measure is complicated (just how many donuts were produced last year, mr. labor statistitian?). So we resort to using GNP measures of various kinds, but that number is expressed in dollars, and the “value” of dollars can and does change.
The classic example on an aggregate basis is agriculture where the number of labor hours to produce X amount of product is dramatically less than it was a century ago.
If you want to get into the gory details, I suggest you start here:
https://www.bls.gov/productivity/
Thanks.
Tony,
Labor productivity is “a measure of economic performance that compares the amount of output with the amount of labor used to produce that output” (BLS).
So for this PARTICULAR barber, productivity remains unchanged when the price goes up but the production rate (efficiency) does not change.
If the barber is provided an electric cutter and can perform a haircut in half the time it used to take, then productivity has increased.
Ascertaining an aggregate productivity measure is complicated (just how many donuts were produced last year, mr. labor statistitian?). So we resort to using GNP measures of various kinds, but that number is expressed in dollars, and the “value” of dollars can and does change.
The classic example on an aggregate basis is agriculture where the number of labor hours to produce X amount of product is dramatically less than it was a century ago.
If you want to get into the gory details, I suggest you start here:
https://www.bls.gov/productivity/
Thanks.
also this….
GNP includes both goods and services. How do you measure the “productivity” of a Broadway play? Well, consider this scenario: Labor hours remain unchanged year over year, but inflation adjusted or “real” GNP goes up. This implies an increase in productivity. We are producing more stuff using the same amount of labor inputs. But what about those spongers making Broadway plays? The social ability to have a higher standard of living due to increased productivity enables us, as a society, to both meet our material needs and engage in other socially desirable activities, like paying big bucks to watch a play.
also this….
GNP includes both goods and services. How do you measure the “productivity” of a Broadway play? Well, consider this scenario: Labor hours remain unchanged year over year, but inflation adjusted or “real” GNP goes up. This implies an increase in productivity. We are producing more stuff using the same amount of labor inputs. But what about those spongers making Broadway plays? The social ability to have a higher standard of living due to increased productivity enables us, as a society, to both meet our material needs and engage in other socially desirable activities, like paying big bucks to watch a play.
The classic example on an aggregate basis is agriculture where the number of labor hours to produce X amount of product is dramatically less than it was a century ago.
There’s still child labor on farms. But instead of doing hard physical work, the ten-year-old is sitting in the air-conditioned cab of a half-a-million-dollar machine with the productivity of a thousand laborers.
The classic example on an aggregate basis is agriculture where the number of labor hours to produce X amount of product is dramatically less than it was a century ago.
There’s still child labor on farms. But instead of doing hard physical work, the ten-year-old is sitting in the air-conditioned cab of a half-a-million-dollar machine with the productivity of a thousand laborers.
So we resort to using GNP measures of various kinds, but that number is expressed in dollars, and the “value” of dollars can and does change.
Therein lies the rub for Tony P., or so I am guessing. Somewhere along the way, haircuts get converted to dollars, so $30 haircuts become more output than $20 haircuts in the aggregated measures. (This assumes that 30 is always more than 20, regardless of the fluctuating value of the dollar. ;^} )
So we resort to using GNP measures of various kinds, but that number is expressed in dollars, and the “value” of dollars can and does change.
Therein lies the rub for Tony P., or so I am guessing. Somewhere along the way, haircuts get converted to dollars, so $30 haircuts become more output than $20 haircuts in the aggregated measures. (This assumes that 30 is always more than 20, regardless of the fluctuating value of the dollar. ;^} )
Because things cost more than they did 60 years ago, and teachers need to eat.
Because things cost more than they did 60 years ago, and teachers need to eat.
There’s still child labor on farms. But instead of doing hard physical work, the ten-year-old is sitting in the air-conditioned cab of a half-a-million-dollar machine with the productivity of a thousand laborers.
I can remember being a 10 year old sitting on the tractor. It didn’t have air conditioning. But then, neither did the house.
There’s still child labor on farms. But instead of doing hard physical work, the ten-year-old is sitting in the air-conditioned cab of a half-a-million-dollar machine with the productivity of a thousand laborers.
I can remember being a 10 year old sitting on the tractor. It didn’t have air conditioning. But then, neither did the house.
Because things cost more than they did 60 years ago, and teachers need to eat.
Prices have been going up recently. But most things including food are cheaper than they were 60 years ago in the number of hours you have to work to buy them.
Because things cost more than they did 60 years ago, and teachers need to eat.
Prices have been going up recently. But most things including food are cheaper than they were 60 years ago in the number of hours you have to work to buy them.
I can remember being a 10 year old sitting on the tractor. It didn’t have air conditioning. But then, neither did the house.
I may have been twelve or so when I started working with a tractor. The clapboard house certainly didn’t have A/C.
I can remember being a 10 year old sitting on the tractor. It didn’t have air conditioning. But then, neither did the house.
I may have been twelve or so when I started working with a tractor. The clapboard house certainly didn’t have A/C.
I don’t recall it being a particularly rough childhood. But then, my parents were adamant that school came first.
I don’t recall it being a particularly rough childhood. But then, my parents were adamant that school came first.
Gosh, Mr. Peabody…
Gosh, Mr. Peabody…
But most things including food are cheaper than they were 60 years ago in the number of hours you have to work to buy them.
Not if your hourly rate is what it was in 1964.
But most things including food are cheaper than they were 60 years ago in the number of hours you have to work to buy them.
Not if your hourly rate is what it was in 1964.
hsh: Therein lies the rub for Tony P., or so I am guessing.
hairshirt gets me 🙂
I still remember my economics prof explaining that if you divide annual GDP by tons of vanadium used per year, you get a number that can reasonably be called the “productivity of vanadium in $/ton”.
Substitute “haircuts” for “tons of vanadium” and you get a similar productivity metric. Or substitute “5th grade classes” or “Broadway performances” for “tons of vanadium”, if you like numbers with ridiculous units. It’s fun, but possibly pointless.
Dividing GDP by “hours worked” is more pointfull. But you have to define both the numerator and denominator sensibly. Defining GDP in terms of nominal dollars would be silly, for instance.
I mean, you can always divide one number by another and the result tells you something. What that quotient means depends on how you defined the numbers in the first place.
–TP
hsh: Therein lies the rub for Tony P., or so I am guessing.
hairshirt gets me 🙂
I still remember my economics prof explaining that if you divide annual GDP by tons of vanadium used per year, you get a number that can reasonably be called the “productivity of vanadium in $/ton”.
Substitute “haircuts” for “tons of vanadium” and you get a similar productivity metric. Or substitute “5th grade classes” or “Broadway performances” for “tons of vanadium”, if you like numbers with ridiculous units. It’s fun, but possibly pointless.
Dividing GDP by “hours worked” is more pointfull. But you have to define both the numerator and denominator sensibly. Defining GDP in terms of nominal dollars would be silly, for instance.
I mean, you can always divide one number by another and the result tells you something. What that quotient means depends on how you defined the numbers in the first place.
–TP
IKR? The whole point is about how much 5th grade teachers should be paid.
On another note, nous (and Michael Cain for geographical reasons), I’m going to Colorado to see Clutch for 2 nights at the Stanley Hotel this spring. Staying in the hotel (the inspiration for the Overlook in The Shining for those who don’t know) gets you access to the afterparties – one featuring an acoustic set and one with the band DJing. Should be bangin’ (and I get to be in Colorado!).
IKR? The whole point is about how much 5th grade teachers should be paid.
On another note, nous (and Michael Cain for geographical reasons), I’m going to Colorado to see Clutch for 2 nights at the Stanley Hotel this spring. Staying in the hotel (the inspiration for the Overlook in The Shining for those who don’t know) gets you access to the afterparties – one featuring an acoustic set and one with the band DJing. Should be bangin’ (and I get to be in Colorado!).
Cross posted – I meant that first part as a response to russell.
Cross posted – I meant that first part as a response to russell.
In an absolute sense “food is cheap”.
That, I claim is the essence of “civilization”. Food is cheap, we don’t have to do subsistence farming to survive.
It does let you put those “EXPENSIVE EGGS!1!!” in perspective.
In an absolute sense “food is cheap”.
That, I claim is the essence of “civilization”. Food is cheap, we don’t have to do subsistence farming to survive.
It does let you put those “EXPENSIVE EGGS!1!!” in perspective.
On another, but related, subject, we talked not long ago about whether class-based (using US definition of class) as opposed to race-based affirmative action would make more sense. For anybody interested, this (somewhat depressing) piece is a gift link on the subject from today’s WaPo:
https://wapo.st/3StRz1o
On another, but related, subject, we talked not long ago about whether class-based (using US definition of class) as opposed to race-based affirmative action would make more sense. For anybody interested, this (somewhat depressing) piece is a gift link on the subject from today’s WaPo:
https://wapo.st/3StRz1o
Fifth grade teachers teach classes that are about the same size they were 60 years ago, and teach much the same material they did 60 years ago. Why should their salaries reflect productivity gains generally?
The classes might be the same size but the content and expectations are not. Those teachers sixty years ago weren’t expected to accomdate a wide range of learners–one size lesson to fit all, and so what if a kid had learning problems of some kind. Also that teacher is expected to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, science, health, history, government, and more. (depending on state requirements.) They are expected to administer tests and respond by re-teaching those kids who are not up to par on the tests. IN addition, they are expected to notice, report and cope with the emotional fall out of sexual and physical abuse while coping with harassment from parents–all this with a half hour lunch and short breaks when the kids get a quick art or music or PE class.
And of course every single year someone with an agenda wants their agenda added to the curriculum. The agendas are often very worthy, but teachers already are expected to do more than one human in a room with twenty-five kids is going to be able to do.
Fifth grade teachers teach classes that are about the same size they were 60 years ago, and teach much the same material they did 60 years ago. Why should their salaries reflect productivity gains generally?
The classes might be the same size but the content and expectations are not. Those teachers sixty years ago weren’t expected to accomdate a wide range of learners–one size lesson to fit all, and so what if a kid had learning problems of some kind. Also that teacher is expected to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, science, health, history, government, and more. (depending on state requirements.) They are expected to administer tests and respond by re-teaching those kids who are not up to par on the tests. IN addition, they are expected to notice, report and cope with the emotional fall out of sexual and physical abuse while coping with harassment from parents–all this with a half hour lunch and short breaks when the kids get a quick art or music or PE class.
And of course every single year someone with an agenda wants their agenda added to the curriculum. The agendas are often very worthy, but teachers already are expected to do more than one human in a room with twenty-five kids is going to be able to do.
The classes might be the same size but the content and expectations are not. Those teachers sixty years ago weren’t expected to accomdate a wide range of learners–one size lesson to fit all, and so what if a kid had learning problems of some kind.
This is school choice week. 🙂
The classes might be the same size but the content and expectations are not. Those teachers sixty years ago weren’t expected to accomdate a wide range of learners–one size lesson to fit all, and so what if a kid had learning problems of some kind.
This is school choice week. 🙂
I went to a Catholic school in a parish of working class immigrants. The classes sizes were huge. My grade typically had more than 40 kids in the room, and we were the smallest class of the 8 grades the school taught for my whole tenure there.
My impression is therefore skewed, but still, I was pretty sure class sizes had gotten smaller over the years, and this chart suggests that they did. Sort of a quibble, I suppose, because as has already been touched on, “productivity” doesn’t really apply to classrooms.
A BJ commenter had a long, cogent comment on productivity in relation to college costs a while back, but I don’t have time to try to find it right now. But if we’re going to talk about various things people get paid for, I would like to add (in addition to education and the theater) pro sports. Seems like people have to get paid (i.e., as russell says, have grocery money and generally a decent life) for all kinds of things that can’t be framed in “productivity” terms.
I went to a Catholic school in a parish of working class immigrants. The classes sizes were huge. My grade typically had more than 40 kids in the room, and we were the smallest class of the 8 grades the school taught for my whole tenure there.
My impression is therefore skewed, but still, I was pretty sure class sizes had gotten smaller over the years, and this chart suggests that they did. Sort of a quibble, I suppose, because as has already been touched on, “productivity” doesn’t really apply to classrooms.
A BJ commenter had a long, cogent comment on productivity in relation to college costs a while back, but I don’t have time to try to find it right now. But if we’re going to talk about various things people get paid for, I would like to add (in addition to education and the theater) pro sports. Seems like people have to get paid (i.e., as russell says, have grocery money and generally a decent life) for all kinds of things that can’t be framed in “productivity” terms.
That, I claim is the essence of “civilization”. Food is cheap, we don’t have to do subsistence farming to survive.
Yep, surplus calories. Preferably in a form that allows storage. TTBOMK, no one has done it at scale without grain of some sort. Sounds like one of those odd things from the Connections shows: from grass to rockets to the moon.
That, I claim is the essence of “civilization”. Food is cheap, we don’t have to do subsistence farming to survive.
Yep, surplus calories. Preferably in a form that allows storage. TTBOMK, no one has done it at scale without grain of some sort. Sounds like one of those odd things from the Connections shows: from grass to rockets to the moon.
This was somewhat cheering on an otherwise depressing day. Electricity in the US is on pace to be 100% renewable by 2060, 100% non-fossil fuel (ie, include nuclear in the calculation) by 2050. In states with renewable mandates, the utilities are ahead of the mandate. In states w/o mandates, the change is still happening.
The Transwest Express, Sunzia, and Colorado Pathway transmission projects, all hundreds of miles long intended to move bulk power from renewable sources to demand centers in the Western Interconnect broke ground last year.
This was somewhat cheering on an otherwise depressing day. Electricity in the US is on pace to be 100% renewable by 2060, 100% non-fossil fuel (ie, include nuclear in the calculation) by 2050. In states with renewable mandates, the utilities are ahead of the mandate. In states w/o mandates, the change is still happening.
The Transwest Express, Sunzia, and Colorado Pathway transmission projects, all hundreds of miles long intended to move bulk power from renewable sources to demand centers in the Western Interconnect broke ground last year.
TTBOMK, no one has done it at scale without grain of some sort.
Grains are the least costly to produce followed by legumes, root/starchy vegetables, and oilseeds.
TTBOMK, no one has done it at scale without grain of some sort.
Grains are the least costly to produce followed by legumes, root/starchy vegetables, and oilseeds.
But at some point you max out. You have all your necessities covered. You have funds set aside for emergencies. You have reasonable progress towards funding your retirement. You have a sufficient number and varieties of luxuries that, if you get another, it essentially means you don’t have time to enjoy both it and all the ones you already have. Time being the one thing you can’t buy more of — pauper or prince, there’s only 24 hours in a day.
Some of your money you spend on goods you can enjoy, some you spend on paying people to do things for you so that you have more time to enjoy spending your money.
But at some point you max out. You have all your necessities covered. You have funds set aside for emergencies. You have reasonable progress towards funding your retirement. You have a sufficient number and varieties of luxuries that, if you get another, it essentially means you don’t have time to enjoy both it and all the ones you already have. Time being the one thing you can’t buy more of — pauper or prince, there’s only 24 hours in a day.
Some of your money you spend on goods you can enjoy, some you spend on paying people to do things for you so that you have more time to enjoy spending your money.
There’s still child labor on farms. But instead of doing hard physical work, the ten-year-old is sitting in the air-conditioned cab of a half-a-million-dollar machine with the productivity of a thousand laborers.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/child-labor-marc-jac-poultry-teenager-death/
There’s still child labor on farms. But instead of doing hard physical work, the ten-year-old is sitting in the air-conditioned cab of a half-a-million-dollar machine with the productivity of a thousand laborers.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/child-labor-marc-jac-poultry-teenager-death/
This YouTube video touches on some of the same elements as in the comments.
“Apparently us guys think about the Roman Empire 5 times a day, but from an economic Perspective it’s hard to see why. While they did build a lot of architectural monuments, their economy was actually rather pathetic by almost all metrics. Why was Rome, which had a large empire and notoriety throughout Europe for millennia after its demise, actually a very weak economy? “
The Rather Pathetic Economy of the Roman Empire
This YouTube video touches on some of the same elements as in the comments.
“Apparently us guys think about the Roman Empire 5 times a day, but from an economic Perspective it’s hard to see why. While they did build a lot of architectural monuments, their economy was actually rather pathetic by almost all metrics. Why was Rome, which had a large empire and notoriety throughout Europe for millennia after its demise, actually a very weak economy? “
The Rather Pathetic Economy of the Roman Empire
Thanks for the above, lj. I offer this:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/04/us-should-end-child-labor-agriculture
Child labor on the farm is an abomination, idyllic rural memories aside.
Thanks for the above, lj. I offer this:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/04/us-should-end-child-labor-agriculture
Child labor on the farm is an abomination, idyllic rural memories aside.
That will free the kids up for proper factory work. 😉
That will free the kids up for proper factory work. 😉
I really appreciate this thread and all the links, which I’ve gathered to read over time. So thanks, everyone.
*****
Meanwhile, relating to some of our other continuing topics, there’s this.
It couldn’t happen to a more deserving psychopath. (Although he deserves a lot worse than a stupid AI-generated picture at this point.)
I’m not religious (to put it gently), but the picture at the link is an abomination, and not just because he has six fingers. There’s some good in religion, there’s nothing good in Clickbait. A picture of him in church is revolting.
It’s kind of mind-boggling that any human being could be so thoroughly without redeeming qualities as he is. With some bad guys, at least we could say, “Well, he’s nice to his dog.” Not this guy, he hates dogs….
I really appreciate this thread and all the links, which I’ve gathered to read over time. So thanks, everyone.
*****
Meanwhile, relating to some of our other continuing topics, there’s this.
It couldn’t happen to a more deserving psychopath. (Although he deserves a lot worse than a stupid AI-generated picture at this point.)
I’m not religious (to put it gently), but the picture at the link is an abomination, and not just because he has six fingers. There’s some good in religion, there’s nothing good in Clickbait. A picture of him in church is revolting.
It’s kind of mind-boggling that any human being could be so thoroughly without redeeming qualities as he is. With some bad guys, at least we could say, “Well, he’s nice to his dog.” Not this guy, he hates dogs….
It’s kind of mind-boggling that any human being could be so thoroughly without redeeming qualities as he is.
Seconded, thirded, ad infinitum.
The pundits seem to be saying that if he is the nominee, it is much better for the Dems than any other R challengers. I can see the thinking, and desperately hope it’s true, and that it’s enough to do for him once and for all. Meanwhile, the rest of the world waits in disbelief, terror, and with bated breath. Apart, that is, from his fellow amoral and narcissistic “strongmen” (Bibi, BoJo, Modi, Putin, Milei etc etc).
It’s kind of mind-boggling that any human being could be so thoroughly without redeeming qualities as he is.
Seconded, thirded, ad infinitum.
The pundits seem to be saying that if he is the nominee, it is much better for the Dems than any other R challengers. I can see the thinking, and desperately hope it’s true, and that it’s enough to do for him once and for all. Meanwhile, the rest of the world waits in disbelief, terror, and with bated breath. Apart, that is, from his fellow amoral and narcissistic “strongmen” (Bibi, BoJo, Modi, Putin, Milei etc etc).
Child labor on the farm is an abomination, idyllic rural memories aside.
You might want to note that the examples given are mostly kids working 12 hour shifts, 100 hour weeks, using equipment without adequate safety features, etc. Which would be objectionable for an adult worker as well.
I submit that it would be sufficient to put kids working in agriculture on the same basis as kids working in other sectors:
That sort of thing.
Now, you may to get exercised about kids in agriculture working long hours from stark economic necessity. But that isn’t, at its heart, a problem of child labor, now, is it.
Child labor on the farm is an abomination, idyllic rural memories aside.
You might want to note that the examples given are mostly kids working 12 hour shifts, 100 hour weeks, using equipment without adequate safety features, etc. Which would be objectionable for an adult worker as well.
I submit that it would be sufficient to put kids working in agriculture on the same basis as kids working in other sectors:
That sort of thing.
Now, you may to get exercised about kids in agriculture working long hours from stark economic necessity. But that isn’t, at its heart, a problem of child labor, now, is it.
“the picture at the link is an abomination, and not just because he has six fingers”
My name is Inigo Montoya. You kill my father. Prepare to die.
“the picture at the link is an abomination, and not just because he has six fingers”
My name is Inigo Montoya. You kill my father. Prepare to die.
“the picture at the link is an abomination, and not just because he has six fingers”
My name is Inigo Montoya. You kill my father. Prepare to die.
“the picture at the link is an abomination, and not just because he has six fingers”
My name is Inigo Montoya. You kill my father. Prepare to die.
Just because: there’s something else wrong with that picture of Clickbait in church: the orientations are wrong. Among other things.
Windows in churches tend to be at the sides. You pray facing the altar, which usually does not place you with windows at your back.
Not only that, now that I’m looking at it again, but the pews look backwards. Or he looks backwards in relation to the pews. There should be a bench/seat behind him, but there isn’t.
The AI ought to go into a church sometime and get a reality check. 😉
Just because: there’s something else wrong with that picture of Clickbait in church: the orientations are wrong. Among other things.
Windows in churches tend to be at the sides. You pray facing the altar, which usually does not place you with windows at your back.
Not only that, now that I’m looking at it again, but the pews look backwards. Or he looks backwards in relation to the pews. There should be a bench/seat behind him, but there isn’t.
The AI ought to go into a church sometime and get a reality check. 😉
And yet more on wealth and inequality:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/24/britain-richest-10-per-cent-wealthy-inequality-labour-private-schools
(And for anybody remotely interested, when I referred earlier to a US type definition of class, what I really meant was that it was defined by wealth or its lack. As all ObWiers surely know, the UK type definition is much weirder, and quite apart from the inequality question which we are considering, probably becoming less important than once it was.)
And yet more on wealth and inequality:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/24/britain-richest-10-per-cent-wealthy-inequality-labour-private-schools
(And for anybody remotely interested, when I referred earlier to a US type definition of class, what I really meant was that it was defined by wealth or its lack. As all ObWiers surely know, the UK type definition is much weirder, and quite apart from the inequality question which we are considering, probably becoming less important than once it was.)
Apart, that is, from his fellow amoral and narcissistic “strongmen” (Bibi, BoJo, Modi, Putin, Milei etc etc).
Milei speaks. He doesn’t give me the impression of an authoritarian beyond his efforts to turn the Argentine ship of state as fast as possible.
AI-generated English translation of Milei’s 2024 Davos Talk(In His Accent)
Apart, that is, from his fellow amoral and narcissistic “strongmen” (Bibi, BoJo, Modi, Putin, Milei etc etc).
Milei speaks. He doesn’t give me the impression of an authoritarian beyond his efforts to turn the Argentine ship of state as fast as possible.
AI-generated English translation of Milei’s 2024 Davos Talk(In His Accent)
The AI ought to go into a church sometime and get a reality check.
The problem with the neural net stuff is that we generally have no idea what is being learned when we train a billion-parameter model using millions of images. Will it learn that things have fronts and backs, and the orientation matters? I haven’t seen any examples of a generative image model that also explains what’s in the image, and how those objects relate to one another.
The AI ought to go into a church sometime and get a reality check.
The problem with the neural net stuff is that we generally have no idea what is being learned when we train a billion-parameter model using millions of images. Will it learn that things have fronts and backs, and the orientation matters? I haven’t seen any examples of a generative image model that also explains what’s in the image, and how those objects relate to one another.
Will it learn that things have fronts and backs, and the orientation matters?
Thanks, Michael, for articulating a generalization of at least one of the sources of my skepticism.
For this specific example I would say: that picture suggests that the answer is no. Or not yet.
More generally: there’s no end to the list of things that humans know that we’re not even aware that we know. How much more so for an AI?
Will it learn that things have fronts and backs, and the orientation matters?
Thanks, Michael, for articulating a generalization of at least one of the sources of my skepticism.
For this specific example I would say: that picture suggests that the answer is no. Or not yet.
More generally: there’s no end to the list of things that humans know that we’re not even aware that we know. How much more so for an AI?
Not to say that I believe an AI is “aware” …..
Not to say that I believe an AI is “aware” …..
there’s no end to the list of things that humans know that we’re not even aware that we know.
God, I hope so. Otherwise, I’m totally screwed.
there’s no end to the list of things that humans know that we’re not even aware that we know.
God, I hope so. Otherwise, I’m totally screwed.
I haven’t seen any examples of a generative image model that also explains what’s in the image, and how those objects relate to one another.
So what do they say: “church”? “Inside of church”? “Christian church”? Somewhere the AI that made that pictures must have acquired a notion of what “praying” might look like….
I haven’t seen any examples of a generative image model that also explains what’s in the image, and how those objects relate to one another.
So what do they say: “church”? “Inside of church”? “Christian church”? Somewhere the AI that made that pictures must have acquired a notion of what “praying” might look like….
Now, you may to get exercised about kids in agriculture working long hours from stark economic necessity. But that isn’t, at its heart, a problem of child labor, now, is it.
Insofar as this work is not voluntary in any meaningful sense of the term, I would submit that, yes, it certainly is.
As for actual regulations, you might be surprised to know that we actually do have a few (with, um, too many exemptions).
Now, you may to get exercised about kids in agriculture working long hours from stark economic necessity. But that isn’t, at its heart, a problem of child labor, now, is it.
Insofar as this work is not voluntary in any meaningful sense of the term, I would submit that, yes, it certainly is.
As for actual regulations, you might be surprised to know that we actually do have a few (with, um, too many exemptions).
just how “gettable” are deep-into-the-fascist-zeitgeist Trump voters?
Answer: Not very.
just how “gettable” are deep-into-the-fascist-zeitgeist Trump voters?
Answer: Not very.
some more good news….
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-24-american-fascism-john-ganz/
some more good news….
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-24-american-fascism-john-ganz/
bobbyp: could not read the Prospect piece, but I’m still reeling (why? I should be used to this craziness by now) from that LGM piece. Jesus H. That January 6th thing: it’s like a zombie apocalypse….
bobbyp: could not read the Prospect piece, but I’m still reeling (why? I should be used to this craziness by now) from that LGM piece. Jesus H. That January 6th thing: it’s like a zombie apocalypse….
just how “gettable” are deep-into-the-fascist-zeitgeist Trump voters?
Resources are finite. Surely no one with a dollop of sense would spend any resources of any kind trying to “get” “deep-into-the-fascist-zeitgeist” voters. I mean, seriously. Practically any kind of fruit you can imagine exerting yourself to reach for hangs lower than that. (To torture an idiom mercilessly.)
If those voters are a majority, we’re screwed. If they’re not (and I’d bet on that), then I think our worry in relation to them is not whether they can be convinced to vote for Ds (they can’t! see, that was easy!), it’s that they may get their guns out the day after their lord and savior loses another election.
just how “gettable” are deep-into-the-fascist-zeitgeist Trump voters?
Resources are finite. Surely no one with a dollop of sense would spend any resources of any kind trying to “get” “deep-into-the-fascist-zeitgeist” voters. I mean, seriously. Practically any kind of fruit you can imagine exerting yourself to reach for hangs lower than that. (To torture an idiom mercilessly.)
If those voters are a majority, we’re screwed. If they’re not (and I’d bet on that), then I think our worry in relation to them is not whether they can be convinced to vote for Ds (they can’t! see, that was easy!), it’s that they may get their guns out the day after their lord and savior loses another election.
JanieM,
Absolutely. Alas, our pundit class does not appear to see it that way….it’s up to us.
JanieM,
Absolutely. Alas, our pundit class does not appear to see it that way….it’s up to us.
Our pundit class is beyond useless, with a few notable exceptions…. No need to elaborate.
Our pundit class is beyond useless, with a few notable exceptions…. No need to elaborate.
If those voters are a majority, we’re screwed
They don’t need to be an absolute national majority. It’s sufficient if they are a majority in a handful of gerrymandered districts in swing states.
If those voters are a majority, we’re screwed
They don’t need to be an absolute national majority. It’s sufficient if they are a majority in a handful of gerrymandered districts in swing states.
russell — yes. Even more depressing to contemplate.
January 6 took me by surprise last time — maybe other people expected something like that, but I got a bit relieved and complacent after Biden won. This time I’m not going to be at all surprised if they try to gum up the works in every conceivable way, and some inconceivable (to me right now) ones.
russell — yes. Even more depressing to contemplate.
January 6 took me by surprise last time — maybe other people expected something like that, but I got a bit relieved and complacent after Biden won. This time I’m not going to be at all surprised if they try to gum up the works in every conceivable way, and some inconceivable (to me right now) ones.
They don’t need to be an absolute national majority. It’s sufficient if they are a majority in a handful of gerrymandered districts in swing states.
This is absolutely true. And they (Rs, Federalist Society etc) have spent decades and billions machinating and trying to ensure that that can happen (although in all fairness they probably never envisioned it benefitting someone like Trump. Talk about unintended consequences). I dream of a Dem victory large enough to achieve some of the (crucially necessary) electoral reform. But I am terrified it is only a dream.
They don’t need to be an absolute national majority. It’s sufficient if they are a majority in a handful of gerrymandered districts in swing states.
This is absolutely true. And they (Rs, Federalist Society etc) have spent decades and billions machinating and trying to ensure that that can happen (although in all fairness they probably never envisioned it benefitting someone like Trump. Talk about unintended consequences). I dream of a Dem victory large enough to achieve some of the (crucially necessary) electoral reform. But I am terrified it is only a dream.
The gerrymandering is evidence that Trump isn’t the problem: the existential threat to representative government in the US is the Republican party. Trump is the result of their decision to substitute hatemongering and slander and faux outrage over crap for legitimate political discourse because they can’t discuss their real agenda (help the rich and screw you, Jack) with the voters.
The gerrymandering is evidence that Trump isn’t the problem: the existential threat to representative government in the US is the Republican party. Trump is the result of their decision to substitute hatemongering and slander and faux outrage over crap for legitimate political discourse because they can’t discuss their real agenda (help the rich and screw you, Jack) with the voters.
Reading bobbyp’s prospect.org linked article reminds me of the kinds of things my supposedly non-fascist, Rump-supporting (or at least Rump-equivocating) friends say. “You’re blowing everything out of proportion because you listen to the shrieking liberal media. That’s just how he talks; you shouldn’t take it literally. It’s not like he can just do whatever he wants.”
One thing that’s interesting to me is how fascists used to be willing to call themselves fascists before people saw the results of allowing them to take power. There are very few self-described fascists these days. That’s probably part of what the concluding sentences in the prospect.org article are getting at.
Reading bobbyp’s prospect.org linked article reminds me of the kinds of things my supposedly non-fascist, Rump-supporting (or at least Rump-equivocating) friends say. “You’re blowing everything out of proportion because you listen to the shrieking liberal media. That’s just how he talks; you shouldn’t take it literally. It’s not like he can just do whatever he wants.”
One thing that’s interesting to me is how fascists used to be willing to call themselves fascists before people saw the results of allowing them to take power. There are very few self-described fascists these days. That’s probably part of what the concluding sentences in the prospect.org article are getting at.
They don’t need to be an absolute national majority. It’s sufficient if they are a majority in a handful of gerrymandered districts in swing states.
Also
they (Rs, Federalist Society etc.) have spent decades and billions machinating and trying to ensure that that can happen
My perception is that the reactionaries have spent a lot of time and effort, over a lot of years, taking control of state legislatures. Which, in turn, lets them gerrymander to make sure that they keep control of those legislatures**, even when they have lost a majority of the state’s voters. In contrast, the Democratic Party seems to focus on the Congress (and the Presidency, with an occasional look in at governors), while making the state legislatures an afterthought. That allows the right’s efforts to succeed in more cases than they would otherwise.
That may not be true in a lot of places. But from a distance, that’s sure what it looks like.
** And also hold more Congressional seats than they otherwise would have.
They don’t need to be an absolute national majority. It’s sufficient if they are a majority in a handful of gerrymandered districts in swing states.
Also
they (Rs, Federalist Society etc.) have spent decades and billions machinating and trying to ensure that that can happen
My perception is that the reactionaries have spent a lot of time and effort, over a lot of years, taking control of state legislatures. Which, in turn, lets them gerrymander to make sure that they keep control of those legislatures**, even when they have lost a majority of the state’s voters. In contrast, the Democratic Party seems to focus on the Congress (and the Presidency, with an occasional look in at governors), while making the state legislatures an afterthought. That allows the right’s efforts to succeed in more cases than they would otherwise.
That may not be true in a lot of places. But from a distance, that’s sure what it looks like.
** And also hold more Congressional seats than they otherwise would have.
I dream of a Dem victory large enough to achieve some of the (crucially necessary) electoral reform.
While Pelosi was most recently Speaker the House introduced HR1 each year. While it was effectively blocked, it went to committee and sat there — no markup, no votes. With no disrespect intended, the bill was clearly written for/by Blacks in large eastern cities: precinct this, absentee ballot that, and so forth.
In 2021, when there seemed to be a chance, that year’s bill actually got marked up in committee. Precinct was replaced by vote center throughout. Absentee was replaced by mail. Those were the minimum needed to appease western state Senators whose states had adopted vote by mail on a large scale, whose state laws no longer mentioned precincts or absentee.
I assert getting enough western Democratic Congress critters on board for that particular bill will still be problematic. The bill requires states to have robust vote by mail, but also to have robust small precinct-based in-person voting. At least to my reading, the system here in Colorado would clearly not conform; we vote by mail, with a small number of vote centers to handle the edge cases (eg, late registration). We actively discourage people from voting in person.
When academic experts rank the states’ voting systems for accuracy, security, and convenience, the top spots on the list are dominated by vote by mail states. In November this year, in the 13-state West (as defined by the Census Bureau), over 90% of regional ballots cast will be ballots distributed by mail. In some of those states, over 95%. That didn’t happen by accident.
I dream of a Dem victory large enough to achieve some of the (crucially necessary) electoral reform.
While Pelosi was most recently Speaker the House introduced HR1 each year. While it was effectively blocked, it went to committee and sat there — no markup, no votes. With no disrespect intended, the bill was clearly written for/by Blacks in large eastern cities: precinct this, absentee ballot that, and so forth.
In 2021, when there seemed to be a chance, that year’s bill actually got marked up in committee. Precinct was replaced by vote center throughout. Absentee was replaced by mail. Those were the minimum needed to appease western state Senators whose states had adopted vote by mail on a large scale, whose state laws no longer mentioned precincts or absentee.
I assert getting enough western Democratic Congress critters on board for that particular bill will still be problematic. The bill requires states to have robust vote by mail, but also to have robust small precinct-based in-person voting. At least to my reading, the system here in Colorado would clearly not conform; we vote by mail, with a small number of vote centers to handle the edge cases (eg, late registration). We actively discourage people from voting in person.
When academic experts rank the states’ voting systems for accuracy, security, and convenience, the top spots on the list are dominated by vote by mail states. In November this year, in the 13-state West (as defined by the Census Bureau), over 90% of regional ballots cast will be ballots distributed by mail. In some of those states, over 95%. That didn’t happen by accident.
they probably never envisioned it benefitting someone like Trump
By the way, this isn’t to detract from the fact that they clearly did envisage it benefitting Rs, and Republican priorities, at the expense of the democratic rights of anybody else. The fact that it has ended up benefitting someone like Trump (which clearly some trad Rs are horrified by) is an illustration for them, and everybody else, of the “slippery slope” or “thin end of the wedge” effect, quite apart from the law of unintended consequences.
they probably never envisioned it benefitting someone like Trump
By the way, this isn’t to detract from the fact that they clearly did envisage it benefitting Rs, and Republican priorities, at the expense of the democratic rights of anybody else. The fact that it has ended up benefitting someone like Trump (which clearly some trad Rs are horrified by) is an illustration for them, and everybody else, of the “slippery slope” or “thin end of the wedge” effect, quite apart from the law of unintended consequences.
The inimitable Betty Cracker at BJ, not on pundits per se but on political reporting, reacting to an article framed as being about Biden voters but actually focusing on guess who?
Excerpt:
The inimitable Betty Cracker at BJ, not on pundits per se but on political reporting, reacting to an article framed as being about Biden voters but actually focusing on guess who?
Excerpt:
I loved this, from that Betty Cracker piece:
If democracy is to be saved, we Biden voters will have to do the saving without any assistance from the Fourth Estate. In fact, we’ll have to save democracy with their dead fucking weight strapped to our backs.
And further to that whole discussion, this is from today’s Grauniad:
“The serious scholars of fascism are now saying that the ‘F-word’ is merited,” Jeff Sharlet, a Dartmouth professor and author of The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War, told me in an interview on Wednesday.
Do Americans really want to live in a fascist or authoritarian nation? Some may believe it will work out just fine – that the loss of freedom may hurt others, but not them – but most of us don’t want that. Or we wouldn’t if we were fully aware of the consequences.
I talked with Sharlet about the actions that the mainstream press and regular citizens can take now that we know what we know.
Newsrooms big and small, he believes, need to educate their staffs about the dangers of fascism.
“There needs to be a pause,” he said, in coverage as as usual, and an internal reckoning. Sharlet suggests that media leaders bring in scholars – for example, Yale’s Timothy Snyder, who wrote On Tyranny – to lead newsroom discussions, based on clear historical precedent. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, author of Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present, would be another excellent choice.
After the New York Times wrote that Trump’s New Hampshire win “raises questions” about Nikki Haley’s path forward, Sharlet scoffed, noting that such questions have been settled for some time “but a press built for the horse race keeps touting a path that never existed when it should be retooling itself to cover a rapidly mutating fascism”.
Is such a retooling really possible? Of course it is.
The fact that many newsrooms now have democracy teams or democracy reporters suggests that they understand the problem to some extent. But they need to get much more urgent about it.
That kind of change takes clear leadership from the top.
The New York Times – now more influential than ever, as other news organizations shrink and fade by the day – should set an example. Its top editor, Joseph Kahn, with his background as a foreign correspondent in China, is extremely well positioned to take the lead.
As NYU professor Jay Rosen so memorably put it, coverage must refocus: “Not the odds but the stakes.” We do see “stakes” stories, of course, including on the Times front page, but it’s inarguable that horserace coverage still dominates.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/25/second-trump-presidency-dangers-democracy
I loved this, from that Betty Cracker piece:
If democracy is to be saved, we Biden voters will have to do the saving without any assistance from the Fourth Estate. In fact, we’ll have to save democracy with their dead fucking weight strapped to our backs.
And further to that whole discussion, this is from today’s Grauniad:
“The serious scholars of fascism are now saying that the ‘F-word’ is merited,” Jeff Sharlet, a Dartmouth professor and author of The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War, told me in an interview on Wednesday.
Do Americans really want to live in a fascist or authoritarian nation? Some may believe it will work out just fine – that the loss of freedom may hurt others, but not them – but most of us don’t want that. Or we wouldn’t if we were fully aware of the consequences.
I talked with Sharlet about the actions that the mainstream press and regular citizens can take now that we know what we know.
Newsrooms big and small, he believes, need to educate their staffs about the dangers of fascism.
“There needs to be a pause,” he said, in coverage as as usual, and an internal reckoning. Sharlet suggests that media leaders bring in scholars – for example, Yale’s Timothy Snyder, who wrote On Tyranny – to lead newsroom discussions, based on clear historical precedent. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, author of Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present, would be another excellent choice.
After the New York Times wrote that Trump’s New Hampshire win “raises questions” about Nikki Haley’s path forward, Sharlet scoffed, noting that such questions have been settled for some time “but a press built for the horse race keeps touting a path that never existed when it should be retooling itself to cover a rapidly mutating fascism”.
Is such a retooling really possible? Of course it is.
The fact that many newsrooms now have democracy teams or democracy reporters suggests that they understand the problem to some extent. But they need to get much more urgent about it.
That kind of change takes clear leadership from the top.
The New York Times – now more influential than ever, as other news organizations shrink and fade by the day – should set an example. Its top editor, Joseph Kahn, with his background as a foreign correspondent in China, is extremely well positioned to take the lead.
As NYU professor Jay Rosen so memorably put it, coverage must refocus: “Not the odds but the stakes.” We do see “stakes” stories, of course, including on the Times front page, but it’s inarguable that horserace coverage still dominates.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/25/second-trump-presidency-dangers-democracy
Is such a retooling really possible? Of course it is.
Sorry, this is fantasy land. (See bobbyp on pundits.) Opinions are easy, especially if they’re about what other people should be doing. I really doubt that the NYT, spiritual home of the quest for profundity in rural midwestern diners full of Clickbait voters, is going to retool because some columnist at a lesser paper (they’re all lesser papers), and some ivory tower academic, believe it would be helpful. If the powers that be at the NYT wanted a different kind of coverage, they’d have it.
Is such a retooling really possible? Of course it is.
Sorry, this is fantasy land. (See bobbyp on pundits.) Opinions are easy, especially if they’re about what other people should be doing. I really doubt that the NYT, spiritual home of the quest for profundity in rural midwestern diners full of Clickbait voters, is going to retool because some columnist at a lesser paper (they’re all lesser papers), and some ivory tower academic, believe it would be helpful. If the powers that be at the NYT wanted a different kind of coverage, they’d have it.
If the powers that be at the NYT wanted a different kind of coverage, they’d have it.
I hope you’re wrong, while being very afraid that you’re right. And frankly, even if the NYT saw the light and acted accordingly, it would probably make very little, if any difference. Everything we’ve seen suggests that people still intending to vote for Trump are unreachable. Convincing the youth vote to commit D, despite their concerns on Gaza, and generally registering and getting out the D vote, will probably be what makes the difference if anything does.
If the powers that be at the NYT wanted a different kind of coverage, they’d have it.
I hope you’re wrong, while being very afraid that you’re right. And frankly, even if the NYT saw the light and acted accordingly, it would probably make very little, if any difference. Everything we’ve seen suggests that people still intending to vote for Trump are unreachable. Convincing the youth vote to commit D, despite their concerns on Gaza, and generally registering and getting out the D vote, will probably be what makes the difference if anything does.
Just a small pause/recursion in the important discussion of media refocusing (!!!). Presidential races being statewide, they are not gameable through gerrymandering. The candidates still have to win the state, not just the districts.
Gerrymanderings thumb on the presidential scales comes entirely from the vote suppression that it allows the dominant party to get away with.
Just a small pause/recursion in the important discussion of media refocusing (!!!). Presidential races being statewide, they are not gameable through gerrymandering. The candidates still have to win the state, not just the districts.
Gerrymanderings thumb on the presidential scales comes entirely from the vote suppression that it allows the dominant party to get away with.
Gerrymanderings thumb on the presidential scales comes entirely from the vote suppression that it allows the dominant party to get away with.
Generally true, but there are two states that apportion electoral votes in part by congressional district, my own state being one of them. (Idiotic unless everyone does it that way, if you ask me. But nobody did, I didn’t live here in 1972. Anyhow, gerrmandering could still defeat or undercut such a system even if it were universal.)
https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/
Maine hasn’t signed on to the National Popular Vote compact, but another round of legislation for us to join is pending.
Gerrymanderings thumb on the presidential scales comes entirely from the vote suppression that it allows the dominant party to get away with.
Generally true, but there are two states that apportion electoral votes in part by congressional district, my own state being one of them. (Idiotic unless everyone does it that way, if you ask me. But nobody did, I didn’t live here in 1972. Anyhow, gerrmandering could still defeat or undercut such a system even if it were universal.)
https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/
Maine hasn’t signed on to the National Popular Vote compact, but another round of legislation for us to join is pending.
Presidential races being statewide, they are not gameable through gerrymandering. The candidates still have to win the state, not just the districts.
True dat.
Allow me to amend my statement.
They don’t need to be an absolute national majority. It’s sufficient if they tip the balance in a handful of swing states.
Biden won in 2020 by about 7 million votes overall, but in some of the swing states he won his margin was low tens of thousands of votes.
Presidential races being statewide, they are not gameable through gerrymandering. The candidates still have to win the state, not just the districts.
True dat.
Allow me to amend my statement.
They don’t need to be an absolute national majority. It’s sufficient if they tip the balance in a handful of swing states.
Biden won in 2020 by about 7 million votes overall, but in some of the swing states he won his margin was low tens of thousands of votes.
“ Convincing the youth vote to commit D, despite their concerns on Gaza,”
I think they would respond that their concern is that the US is complicit in mass murder ( I will avoid the g word though today’s ruling basically endorses it as a plausbke concern). and that pressure should be put on Biden and not them.
As I complained before, democracy is vastly overrated ( yes, insert Churchill quote here). If you have some President in power just determined to support a horrible action and that President is running against a fascist, you can get extremely frustrated. The only thing Biden cares about is your vote, but if you use that weapon you help Trump.
The irony is that Netanyahu regularly spits in Biden’s face and obviously wants him to lose. It seems to me that people who still think we should give unwavering support to Israel should also be asked if they might be helping Trump with their attitudes. Because they are.
“ Convincing the youth vote to commit D, despite their concerns on Gaza,”
I think they would respond that their concern is that the US is complicit in mass murder ( I will avoid the g word though today’s ruling basically endorses it as a plausbke concern). and that pressure should be put on Biden and not them.
As I complained before, democracy is vastly overrated ( yes, insert Churchill quote here). If you have some President in power just determined to support a horrible action and that President is running against a fascist, you can get extremely frustrated. The only thing Biden cares about is your vote, but if you use that weapon you help Trump.
The irony is that Netanyahu regularly spits in Biden’s face and obviously wants him to lose. It seems to me that people who still think we should give unwavering support to Israel should also be asked if they might be helping Trump with their attitudes. Because they are.
I’d say both supporters of the Palestinians and supporters of Israel** should realize, should be helped to realize, that Biden is far better for their cause. And, since they apparently are believers in magic, helped to understand that a US President doesn’t have the ability to just solve the problem. If he did, it would have happened decades ago.
**Straight up supporters of Netanyahu (definitely distinct from supporters of Israel) would be another story.
I’d say both supporters of the Palestinians and supporters of Israel** should realize, should be helped to realize, that Biden is far better for their cause. And, since they apparently are believers in magic, helped to understand that a US President doesn’t have the ability to just solve the problem. If he did, it would have happened decades ago.
**Straight up supporters of Netanyahu (definitely distinct from supporters of Israel) would be another story.
I’d say both supporters of the Palestinians and supporters of Israel** should realize, should be helped to realize, that Biden is far better for their cause.
While having every sympathy with Donald’s viewpoint @09.55, I cannot think of a cause that Biden is not far better for. Except, of course, the causes of plutocracy, authoritarianism, nativism and xenophobia, sexism and misogyny and too many others of the same sort to name.
I’d say both supporters of the Palestinians and supporters of Israel** should realize, should be helped to realize, that Biden is far better for their cause.
While having every sympathy with Donald’s viewpoint @09.55, I cannot think of a cause that Biden is not far better for. Except, of course, the causes of plutocracy, authoritarianism, nativism and xenophobia, sexism and misogyny and too many others of the same sort to name.
Young voters have a hard time of it. They don’t have a lot of context. They feel like no one asks them what they think, or respects what they want. They don’t feel like they have any power or influence, and they feel like by the time they do have any, it will be too late to do anything. Those things feed into their general tendency to be reactive, rather than reflective.
Learning to see the long view takes most of a person’s twenties – if it ever happens at all.
The only real way to help that along is to actually listen, and engage with that, and help them see how to apply what power they do have to the things that bring them closer to what they want.
Young voters have a hard time of it. They don’t have a lot of context. They feel like no one asks them what they think, or respects what they want. They don’t feel like they have any power or influence, and they feel like by the time they do have any, it will be too late to do anything. Those things feed into their general tendency to be reactive, rather than reflective.
Learning to see the long view takes most of a person’s twenties – if it ever happens at all.
The only real way to help that along is to actually listen, and engage with that, and help them see how to apply what power they do have to the things that bring them closer to what they want.
“ And, since they apparently are believers in magic, helped to understand that a US President doesn’t have the ability to just solve the problem. If he did, it would have happened decades ago.”
Yeah, no. This presumes the US was trying to solve the problem in good faith with no domestic pressures to take sides, which is not correct. And this is far too kind to Biden. He can’t solve the problem but he has actively made it worse. I don’t think the I- P problem can be solved right now, but Biden has been funneling weapons to Israel which was his choice, while his spokespeople robotically repeat meaningless phrases about expressing concerns to our Israeli partners about taking more care to spare civilians. It’s all fatuous nonsense and on top of that, Netanyahu flagrantly opposes a 2ss.
And to be fair, a 2ss is probably impossible, though in large part because of the endless settlement expansion. Just last summer the idiot local state Democratic representatives condemned an attempt to remove tax exempt status for donations to settlements. Morality aside, this was madness. But it was the easy thing to do and last summer, who gave a damn outside a few lefty nuts?
If one wants to take a cold blooded position, the US should write off Israel as an ally and treat them like any other country with a bad human rights record. We can’t fix the world. But we don’t have to work as hard as Biden has to make it worse. The believers in magic are in the Biden White House, with their desire to pretend we can rebuild Gaza, create a 2ss, further build on Trump’s Abraham accords and pick Palestinian leaders for them. Biden has done nothing to show he is anything other than a chump as far as Bibi is concerned.
And again, I recognize that Trump is worse on virtually everything, but Biden is horrible on Gaza. And an insensitive bigoted lout towards his former Arab supporters. Not everything in the world can be blamed on the extremists on the left and right— sometimes those nice responsible folk in the center just keep doing what they want to do, thinking the world has to fit inside their mental framework when it doesn’t..
“ And, since they apparently are believers in magic, helped to understand that a US President doesn’t have the ability to just solve the problem. If he did, it would have happened decades ago.”
Yeah, no. This presumes the US was trying to solve the problem in good faith with no domestic pressures to take sides, which is not correct. And this is far too kind to Biden. He can’t solve the problem but he has actively made it worse. I don’t think the I- P problem can be solved right now, but Biden has been funneling weapons to Israel which was his choice, while his spokespeople robotically repeat meaningless phrases about expressing concerns to our Israeli partners about taking more care to spare civilians. It’s all fatuous nonsense and on top of that, Netanyahu flagrantly opposes a 2ss.
And to be fair, a 2ss is probably impossible, though in large part because of the endless settlement expansion. Just last summer the idiot local state Democratic representatives condemned an attempt to remove tax exempt status for donations to settlements. Morality aside, this was madness. But it was the easy thing to do and last summer, who gave a damn outside a few lefty nuts?
If one wants to take a cold blooded position, the US should write off Israel as an ally and treat them like any other country with a bad human rights record. We can’t fix the world. But we don’t have to work as hard as Biden has to make it worse. The believers in magic are in the Biden White House, with their desire to pretend we can rebuild Gaza, create a 2ss, further build on Trump’s Abraham accords and pick Palestinian leaders for them. Biden has done nothing to show he is anything other than a chump as far as Bibi is concerned.
And again, I recognize that Trump is worse on virtually everything, but Biden is horrible on Gaza. And an insensitive bigoted lout towards his former Arab supporters. Not everything in the world can be blamed on the extremists on the left and right— sometimes those nice responsible folk in the center just keep doing what they want to do, thinking the world has to fit inside their mental framework when it doesn’t..
What should Biden have done? Not what I prefer, but realistically? He should have expressed outrage about Oct 7 and given full support to Israel to respond against Hamas. But after a few days of indiscriminate Israeli bombing and the cutoff of power, which showed how they were going to fight, he should have said Israel has to obey the laws of war and meant it. No weapon deliveries knowing that they were dropping 2000 lb bombs on civilians. Serious examination of individual actions followed by condemnations where it was clear that a war crime had been committed.
Israel could have chosen to try and minimize harm to civilians, but it was clear from very early on that they weren’t going to do this, Biden chose to back them anyway, even initially casting doubt on the death toll. Then the Biden Administration uttering platitudes about taking more care to avoid civilian casualties, but without putting limits on weapons shipments this was meaningless. The Israelis assumed this was political posturing, probably correctly.
What should Biden have done? Not what I prefer, but realistically? He should have expressed outrage about Oct 7 and given full support to Israel to respond against Hamas. But after a few days of indiscriminate Israeli bombing and the cutoff of power, which showed how they were going to fight, he should have said Israel has to obey the laws of war and meant it. No weapon deliveries knowing that they were dropping 2000 lb bombs on civilians. Serious examination of individual actions followed by condemnations where it was clear that a war crime had been committed.
Israel could have chosen to try and minimize harm to civilians, but it was clear from very early on that they weren’t going to do this, Biden chose to back them anyway, even initially casting doubt on the death toll. Then the Biden Administration uttering platitudes about taking more care to avoid civilian casualties, but without putting limits on weapons shipments this was meaningless. The Israelis assumed this was political posturing, probably correctly.
Personally, I think it’s simply cowardice on the part of the administration. They know about the blatant double standards that allow rabid antisemitism run rampant on the ‘conservative’ side while the slightest criticism of the most extreme Israeli policies on the left is decried as equal or worse than the original Nazis. The Israeli Right (I deliberately do not say “Jews” here) has one of the loudest and most effective international artificial outrage engines at its disposal (favorably targeted at non-rabid-right Jews). The other side hasn’t. So better to risk the criticism from those that have no other choice anyway than to suffer the Mighty Wurlitzer round the clock. Not that the latter can be avoided…
Personally, I think it’s simply cowardice on the part of the administration. They know about the blatant double standards that allow rabid antisemitism run rampant on the ‘conservative’ side while the slightest criticism of the most extreme Israeli policies on the left is decried as equal or worse than the original Nazis. The Israeli Right (I deliberately do not say “Jews” here) has one of the loudest and most effective international artificial outrage engines at its disposal (favorably targeted at non-rabid-right Jews). The other side hasn’t. So better to risk the criticism from those that have no other choice anyway than to suffer the Mighty Wurlitzer round the clock. Not that the latter can be avoided…
Forgive if this sounds mad, or at least ridiculously naive, but wouldn’t it be possible for an Israeli government to compulsorily purchase (that’s what we call it in the UK, but I believe in the US it’s called eminent domain) the settlements in pursuit of a 2 SS?. Obviously it was on a much smaller scale, but they did have to give up Sharm el Sheikh. Although, clearly, there might be almost a civil war with the rightwing, and the settlers. But the only way to end this, and the only right thing to do, is the Palestinians have to have a state….
Forgive if this sounds mad, or at least ridiculously naive, but wouldn’t it be possible for an Israeli government to compulsorily purchase (that’s what we call it in the UK, but I believe in the US it’s called eminent domain) the settlements in pursuit of a 2 SS?. Obviously it was on a much smaller scale, but they did have to give up Sharm el Sheikh. Although, clearly, there might be almost a civil war with the rightwing, and the settlers. But the only way to end this, and the only right thing to do, is the Palestinians have to have a state….
I assume that this not possible because in that case I would expect it to be used against Palestinians who would be forced to sell (far below market price probably) with the land then given to developers for more settlements.
I assume that this not possible because in that case I would expect it to be used against Palestinians who would be forced to sell (far below market price probably) with the land then given to developers for more settlements.
The Palestinian Territories are not Israel’s territory. The settlers are on Palestinian land that is occupied by Israel, and Israel is an occupying force there. They cannot legally annex that land without running afoul of international law. (They haven’t even tried to make that claim with East Jerusalem – even though they have de facto annexed it, they have not done so de jure.
The Palestinian Territories are not Israel’s territory. The settlers are on Palestinian land that is occupied by Israel, and Israel is an occupying force there. They cannot legally annex that land without running afoul of international law. (They haven’t even tried to make that claim with East Jerusalem – even though they have de facto annexed it, they have not done so de jure.
The Palestinian Territories are not Israel’s territory. The settlers are on Palestinian land that is occupied by Israel, and Israel is an occupying force there. They cannot legally annex that land without running afoul of international law.
I did sort of realise that, so hadn’t thought the terminology through. But I suppose what it would boil down to is paying the settlers to abandon the settlements, and if they refused (which I’m sure many would) forcing them out, which would clearly end with a lot of very nasty violence. It would certainly make a change from the Israeli state visiting violence on Palestinians. Does anybody know roughly what the population is of, say, the settlements which have been established in the last 20 years?
The Palestinian Territories are not Israel’s territory. The settlers are on Palestinian land that is occupied by Israel, and Israel is an occupying force there. They cannot legally annex that land without running afoul of international law.
I did sort of realise that, so hadn’t thought the terminology through. But I suppose what it would boil down to is paying the settlers to abandon the settlements, and if they refused (which I’m sure many would) forcing them out, which would clearly end with a lot of very nasty violence. It would certainly make a change from the Israeli state visiting violence on Palestinians. Does anybody know roughly what the population is of, say, the settlements which have been established in the last 20 years?
Rather than thinking of it as something akin to eminent domain, think of it as flat out bribing the settlers. I doubt it would work, simply because economics isn’t what is driving the settler movement.
The whole point, for the settlers, is that their settlement is on Palestinian land. Land they want to de facto annex to Israel, in pursuit of a long term goal of ejecting all of the Palestinians from the West Bank. Shutting down the settlements would require the IDF to move in and forcibly remove the settlers. Which would, for certain, involve casualties on both sides.
Rather than thinking of it as something akin to eminent domain, think of it as flat out bribing the settlers. I doubt it would work, simply because economics isn’t what is driving the settler movement.
The whole point, for the settlers, is that their settlement is on Palestinian land. Land they want to de facto annex to Israel, in pursuit of a long term goal of ejecting all of the Palestinians from the West Bank. Shutting down the settlements would require the IDF to move in and forcibly remove the settlers. Which would, for certain, involve casualties on both sides.
Hm, what would happen, if the air force sprayed the settlements with concentrated skunk extract on a regular base, adding some itching powder or something else that isn’t lethal but would make life rather unpleasant?
Hm, what would happen, if the air force sprayed the settlements with concentrated skunk extract on a regular base, adding some itching powder or something else that isn’t lethal but would make life rather unpleasant?
I doubt it would work, simply because economics isn’t what is driving the settler movement.
It clearly wouldn’t work, if they had a choice. I’m working this thought experiment out as I go along, but I guess it would have to be something like “We will evict you in any case, but if you make it easy we will pay you to go.”
All the appalling rightwing American billionaires like Adelson, who funded the settlers, would certainly be up in arms, so in the nearish future it wouldn’t get US buy-in, but I wonder what it would take to make it happen. Something has to give, if the political makeup of Israel ever allows it.
I doubt it would work, simply because economics isn’t what is driving the settler movement.
It clearly wouldn’t work, if they had a choice. I’m working this thought experiment out as I go along, but I guess it would have to be something like “We will evict you in any case, but if you make it easy we will pay you to go.”
All the appalling rightwing American billionaires like Adelson, who funded the settlers, would certainly be up in arms, so in the nearish future it wouldn’t get US buy-in, but I wonder what it would take to make it happen. Something has to give, if the political makeup of Israel ever allows it.
Don’t remember if I got this article here in December, or if it’s something I ran across on the NYTimes on my own, or what:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/14/magazine/israelis-palestinians-peace-forum.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Q00.IKSD.lqI2lz-byeY1&smid=url-share
I’ve been thinking about it a lot during difficult and unproductive social media conversations, the gist of which were that Israel has been blameless in its peace efforts up through October 7, and what follows is entirely to be lain at Hamas’s feet.
Most unproductive conversation I think I have ever had.
This article really captures the way that emotional pain short-circuits conversation.
Don’t remember if I got this article here in December, or if it’s something I ran across on the NYTimes on my own, or what:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/14/magazine/israelis-palestinians-peace-forum.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Q00.IKSD.lqI2lz-byeY1&smid=url-share
I’ve been thinking about it a lot during difficult and unproductive social media conversations, the gist of which were that Israel has been blameless in its peace efforts up through October 7, and what follows is entirely to be lain at Hamas’s feet.
Most unproductive conversation I think I have ever had.
This article really captures the way that emotional pain short-circuits conversation.
This article really captures the way that emotional pain short-circuits conversation.
It’s heartbreaking, and/but it also captures why these conflicts go on and on and on….
This article really captures the way that emotional pain short-circuits conversation.
It’s heartbreaking, and/but it also captures why these conflicts go on and on and on….
This article really captures the way that emotional pain short-circuits conversation.
Yes indeed. I have been thinking about this a lot, because of a terrible case here where a paranoid schizophrenic killed several people in a horrendous spree, although there was plenty of evidence he had been asking desperately but fruitlessly for help, and the relatives of the deceased are very angry that it was a charge of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility as opposed to murder. It is so terribly sad, all round.
On a separate question, I have been pondering on and off about my thought experiment on how to get rid of the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. I’m thinking that they (and their benefactors, both donors and governmental) must have cobbled together some sort of rickety legal framework for it. I wonder what it is? If anybody here, lurkers or otherwise, knows what it is, I would be very interested to hear. But if not, I will try to find out, and might report back if anybody else is interested. My point being, if it’s not obvious, that if there is any kind of legal principle involved, it can be legally challenged by a government that wants to do so, with the backing of a population that wants it to happen.
This article really captures the way that emotional pain short-circuits conversation.
Yes indeed. I have been thinking about this a lot, because of a terrible case here where a paranoid schizophrenic killed several people in a horrendous spree, although there was plenty of evidence he had been asking desperately but fruitlessly for help, and the relatives of the deceased are very angry that it was a charge of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility as opposed to murder. It is so terribly sad, all round.
On a separate question, I have been pondering on and off about my thought experiment on how to get rid of the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. I’m thinking that they (and their benefactors, both donors and governmental) must have cobbled together some sort of rickety legal framework for it. I wonder what it is? If anybody here, lurkers or otherwise, knows what it is, I would be very interested to hear. But if not, I will try to find out, and might report back if anybody else is interested. My point being, if it’s not obvious, that if there is any kind of legal principle involved, it can be legally challenged by a government that wants to do so, with the backing of a population that wants it to happen.
I’m thinking that they (and their benefactors, both donors and governmental) must have cobbled together some sort of rickety legal framework for it.
Hoping someone else actually knows.
But my understanding is that the settlements are flat illegal under current Israeli law. And have been from the beginning. It’s just that the settler movement has enough political clout that no Israeli government has been willing to shut them down.
I’m thinking that they (and their benefactors, both donors and governmental) must have cobbled together some sort of rickety legal framework for it.
Hoping someone else actually knows.
But my understanding is that the settlements are flat illegal under current Israeli law. And have been from the beginning. It’s just that the settler movement has enough political clout that no Israeli government has been willing to shut them down.
It’s like tax exempt RW pastors in the US. They blatantly and proudly violate the letter and spirit of the law against politics from the pulpit* but any attempt to even question their tax exemption is answered with deafening non-stop claims that NO ONE in the history of mankind is or has been as viciously persecuted as conservative Kristians(TM) in the US of to-day. And they are successful with it. The IRS backs off and there is a good chance that some zealots on some courts even rebuke the tax agencies for their transgression against the one true faith.
And there have even been threats of lethal violence from these godly tax cheats or their congregations and little if anything is done. Not to forget outright refusals from law enforcement to actually enforce any laws against these guys.
The main difference (as of yet) is that (most) pastors still refrain from outright calls for murder (at least of non-gays) and (yet) are not in the habit of going out in broad daylight to burn down the houses of worship and the dwellings of their enemies. That could change, if things stay going in the direction the Right is currently going.
*I guess that is on the SCOTUS waiting list too
It’s like tax exempt RW pastors in the US. They blatantly and proudly violate the letter and spirit of the law against politics from the pulpit* but any attempt to even question their tax exemption is answered with deafening non-stop claims that NO ONE in the history of mankind is or has been as viciously persecuted as conservative Kristians(TM) in the US of to-day. And they are successful with it. The IRS backs off and there is a good chance that some zealots on some courts even rebuke the tax agencies for their transgression against the one true faith.
And there have even been threats of lethal violence from these godly tax cheats or their congregations and little if anything is done. Not to forget outright refusals from law enforcement to actually enforce any laws against these guys.
The main difference (as of yet) is that (most) pastors still refrain from outright calls for murder (at least of non-gays) and (yet) are not in the habit of going out in broad daylight to burn down the houses of worship and the dwellings of their enemies. That could change, if things stay going in the direction the Right is currently going.
*I guess that is on the SCOTUS waiting list too
I don’t know. The PA has their own court system, but the IDF controls security and movement, so it may be a case of “I see you have made your decision, now let’s see you enforce it.”
It’s this pattern of controlled movement and de facto annexation that researchers point to when talking about Israel as an apartheid state.
I don’t know. The PA has their own court system, but the IDF controls security and movement, so it may be a case of “I see you have made your decision, now let’s see you enforce it.”
It’s this pattern of controlled movement and de facto annexation that researchers point to when talking about Israel as an apartheid state.
Israel considers some settlements legal and some illegal, but in practice the distinction doesn’t matter much. They are all illegal according to international law— it would be like settling Iraq after 2003, not that there was much desire to do that.
And it isn’t just the far right that expanded settlements. At this stage I don’t know what the Biden people are imagining when they babble about a Palestinian state. I suspect they are secretly imagining a very shrunken one, if they are thinking about it at all. Maybe buy the Palestinian leaders off with Saudi money for reconstruction. They had little interest before Oct 7 and like Trump, they were focused on creating an alliance between Israel and the Arab oil rich monarchies. The Palestinians, it was thought, were no longer central, or not to the governments. Now I think the Biden people are just winging it, trying to keep their dream intact, but now, dammit, they have to pretend to care about the Palestinians again.
https://www.btselem.org/settlements
Notice that the Israeli government considers some of the settlements to have a military purpose, something to remember when they talk about Hamas using their own people as human shields.
Israel considers some settlements legal and some illegal, but in practice the distinction doesn’t matter much. They are all illegal according to international law— it would be like settling Iraq after 2003, not that there was much desire to do that.
And it isn’t just the far right that expanded settlements. At this stage I don’t know what the Biden people are imagining when they babble about a Palestinian state. I suspect they are secretly imagining a very shrunken one, if they are thinking about it at all. Maybe buy the Palestinian leaders off with Saudi money for reconstruction. They had little interest before Oct 7 and like Trump, they were focused on creating an alliance between Israel and the Arab oil rich monarchies. The Palestinians, it was thought, were no longer central, or not to the governments. Now I think the Biden people are just winging it, trying to keep their dream intact, but now, dammit, they have to pretend to care about the Palestinians again.
https://www.btselem.org/settlements
Notice that the Israeli government considers some of the settlements to have a military purpose, something to remember when they talk about Hamas using their own people as human shields.
Donald: I haven’t finished it yet, but that btselem piece is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to see. Thank you!
In what I have read so far, this stood out:
The court did not completely deny the possibility of seizing private land for building settlements, but held that when the dominant reason for issuing a seizure order is the establishment of a civilian settlement rather than military considerations, the order is unlawful.
That, plus:
This system was founded on rewriting legal provisions and applying a completely different approach to the Ottoman Land Code, which governs land ownership in the West Bank, than the standard interpretation applied until then. The new approach made it much easier to declare state land, even when the land in question was considered private or collective Palestinian property under British and later Jordanian rule.
was exactly the kind of cobbled together, rickety legal framework I was speculating about. And, as I said, what has been cobbled together can be uncobbled, given the will to do so. I’m not saying I think it will, or even might, happen. But given the will, there could be a way. Israeli public opinion is no doubt in flux, but Netanyahu and his appalling henchmen are deeply unpopupular. I hope, perhaps naively, that one of the results of October 7th, and the Gazan war, will be a renewed longing for a lasting peace, which as we all know cannot happen without the existence of a Palestinian state.
Donald: I haven’t finished it yet, but that btselem piece is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to see. Thank you!
In what I have read so far, this stood out:
The court did not completely deny the possibility of seizing private land for building settlements, but held that when the dominant reason for issuing a seizure order is the establishment of a civilian settlement rather than military considerations, the order is unlawful.
That, plus:
This system was founded on rewriting legal provisions and applying a completely different approach to the Ottoman Land Code, which governs land ownership in the West Bank, than the standard interpretation applied until then. The new approach made it much easier to declare state land, even when the land in question was considered private or collective Palestinian property under British and later Jordanian rule.
was exactly the kind of cobbled together, rickety legal framework I was speculating about. And, as I said, what has been cobbled together can be uncobbled, given the will to do so. I’m not saying I think it will, or even might, happen. But given the will, there could be a way. Israeli public opinion is no doubt in flux, but Netanyahu and his appalling henchmen are deeply unpopupular. I hope, perhaps naively, that one of the results of October 7th, and the Gazan war, will be a renewed longing for a lasting peace, which as we all know cannot happen without the existence of a Palestinian state.
I’ve been thinking about it a lot during difficult and unproductive social media conversations, the gist of which were that Israel has been blameless in its peace efforts up through October 7, and what follows is entirely to be lain at Hamas’s feet.
As a general rule, anyone who takes the position that the problem is entirely the fault of [insert either side here] is going to be impossible to reason with. In reality, for those who are into that sort of thing, there is way more than enough blame to go around. Anyone who cannot, or will not, recognize that simply isn’t going to be swayed by pesky details.
I’ve been thinking about it a lot during difficult and unproductive social media conversations, the gist of which were that Israel has been blameless in its peace efforts up through October 7, and what follows is entirely to be lain at Hamas’s feet.
As a general rule, anyone who takes the position that the problem is entirely the fault of [insert either side here] is going to be impossible to reason with. In reality, for those who are into that sort of thing, there is way more than enough blame to go around. Anyone who cannot, or will not, recognize that simply isn’t going to be swayed by pesky details.
As a general rule, anyone who takes the position that the problem is entirely the fault of [insert either side here] is going to be impossible to reason with.
Agreed. Unfortunately, that position did not become clear until several exchanges in, as the others involved came in and tried to sweep away all the uncomfortable details. For at least a couple of exchanges it appeared that there were grounds for discussion and some consideration of other perspectives.
Frustrating and disappointing.
As a general rule, anyone who takes the position that the problem is entirely the fault of [insert either side here] is going to be impossible to reason with.
Agreed. Unfortunately, that position did not become clear until several exchanges in, as the others involved came in and tried to sweep away all the uncomfortable details. For at least a couple of exchanges it appeared that there were grounds for discussion and some consideration of other perspectives.
Frustrating and disappointing.
Yeah, this is obviously a conflict where all factions share blame— the various Palestinian “ resistance” factions have always chosen terrorism as a tactic. But the Israeli side has consistently nstanyly flung the antisemitism and terrorist labels around, even at advocates of nonviolent protest techniques. And the US has stuck by Israel no matter what, which I think has been a terrible policy.
On the Palestinian side, the PA is corrupt and feckless and authoritarian.
I am not sure it can be fixed. Eventually, someday. But this is one crisis among several others and in the US I don’t think Biden is willing to put the pressure that would be needed to reach a solution. I am extremely disgusted with him, which is putting it mildly. But even a decent person— I do not consider him a decent person on this subject— would find it politically very difficult to put real pressure on Israel.
If Trump gets in, of course things will be even more chaotic, but that is true of many things.
Yeah, this is obviously a conflict where all factions share blame— the various Palestinian “ resistance” factions have always chosen terrorism as a tactic. But the Israeli side has consistently nstanyly flung the antisemitism and terrorist labels around, even at advocates of nonviolent protest techniques. And the US has stuck by Israel no matter what, which I think has been a terrible policy.
On the Palestinian side, the PA is corrupt and feckless and authoritarian.
I am not sure it can be fixed. Eventually, someday. But this is one crisis among several others and in the US I don’t think Biden is willing to put the pressure that would be needed to reach a solution. I am extremely disgusted with him, which is putting it mildly. But even a decent person— I do not consider him a decent person on this subject— would find it politically very difficult to put real pressure on Israel.
If Trump gets in, of course things will be even more chaotic, but that is true of many things.
I don’t know how to put up a NYT link that non subscribers can read, but many Black churchgoers and clergy are starting to get upset with Biden over the lack of a ceasefire in Gaza.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/us/politics/black-pastors-biden-gaza-israel.html
I don’t know how to put up a NYT link that non subscribers can read, but many Black churchgoers and clergy are starting to get upset with Biden over the lack of a ceasefire in Gaza.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/us/politics/black-pastors-biden-gaza-israel.html
Risky for Democrats to lose many black voters. Once people break a habit they may not return to it. Just ask churches and public schools.
Risky for Democrats to lose many black voters. Once people break a habit they may not return to it. Just ask churches and public schools.
Editorial from today’s Observer:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/20/observer-view-benjamin-netanyahu-israel-needs-a-change-of-course-and-leadership
At the moment it all feels like shouting into the void, but maybe not forever.
Editorial from today’s Observer:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/20/observer-view-benjamin-netanyahu-israel-needs-a-change-of-course-and-leadership
At the moment it all feels like shouting into the void, but maybe not forever.
Donald, to share a NYT article with non-subscribers, you go to the very end of the piece and find the button marked “Share Full Article”, which then gives you options. I use the one to copy the link. I only found this out pretty recently myself.
Donald, to share a NYT article with non-subscribers, you go to the very end of the piece and find the button marked “Share Full Article”, which then gives you options. I use the one to copy the link. I only found this out pretty recently myself.
Thanks Gftnc. Here is the link
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/us/politics/black-pastors-biden-gaza-israel.html?unlocked_article_code=1.RE0.Njbq.weTnJT5DgXhP&smid=url-share
Thanks Gftnc. Here is the link
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/us/politics/black-pastors-biden-gaza-israel.html?unlocked_article_code=1.RE0.Njbq.weTnJT5DgXhP&smid=url-share
Donald: many Black churchgoers and clergy are starting to get upset with Biden over the lack of a ceasefire in Gaza.
CharlesWT: Risky for Democrats to lose many black voters. Once people break a habit they may not return to it.
Upset? So are lots of other people. (Although Biden’s ability to force a ceasefire is debatable.)
But abandon the Democrats for TIFG? Over this? Only if they have no clue how TIFG would deal with the situation. Hint: he and Bibi are soulmates. Including wanting the office in hopes of avoiding criminal prosecution.
Donald: many Black churchgoers and clergy are starting to get upset with Biden over the lack of a ceasefire in Gaza.
CharlesWT: Risky for Democrats to lose many black voters. Once people break a habit they may not return to it.
Upset? So are lots of other people. (Although Biden’s ability to force a ceasefire is debatable.)
But abandon the Democrats for TIFG? Over this? Only if they have no clue how TIFG would deal with the situation. Hint: he and Bibi are soulmates. Including wanting the office in hopes of avoiding criminal prosecution.
I get why all of these groups are upset about the way that the US nerfs every effort to create consequences for Israel’s abuse of Palestinian human rights. I share their frustration.
And I understand why they might think that being told they must vote for Biden despite his active role in the nerfing feels like cynical calculation and squeamishness in the face of atrocity. Oh yeah, I get that.
I also think that both Netanyahu and the GOP are looking at the situation as one they can exploit whichever way Biden steps. They will let him twist in the wind, and they will assail his lack of leadership as long as he continues to let this play out, but if he acts to stop any aid to Israel, they will pivot to stop him and assure Netanyahu that the GOP, at least, is a firm friend to Israel. The political environment being what it is, they might be able to finagle that into control of all three branches.
And I don’t think Netanyahu can afford to stop what he is doing with or without US support. Acting, and failing to have an effect, will also underscore how ineffectual Biden is in this circumstance.
It’s no wonder he’s just trying to ride this out.
I think our best hopes for leverage come from outside of the US, and I’m hoping that Biden’s people are letting our allies know that while the US may not take a firm stand, we are counting on them to act on their own political consciences to apply whatever pressure they can bring to bear.
I get why all of these groups are upset about the way that the US nerfs every effort to create consequences for Israel’s abuse of Palestinian human rights. I share their frustration.
And I understand why they might think that being told they must vote for Biden despite his active role in the nerfing feels like cynical calculation and squeamishness in the face of atrocity. Oh yeah, I get that.
I also think that both Netanyahu and the GOP are looking at the situation as one they can exploit whichever way Biden steps. They will let him twist in the wind, and they will assail his lack of leadership as long as he continues to let this play out, but if he acts to stop any aid to Israel, they will pivot to stop him and assure Netanyahu that the GOP, at least, is a firm friend to Israel. The political environment being what it is, they might be able to finagle that into control of all three branches.
And I don’t think Netanyahu can afford to stop what he is doing with or without US support. Acting, and failing to have an effect, will also underscore how ineffectual Biden is in this circumstance.
It’s no wonder he’s just trying to ride this out.
I think our best hopes for leverage come from outside of the US, and I’m hoping that Biden’s people are letting our allies know that while the US may not take a firm stand, we are counting on them to act on their own political consciences to apply whatever pressure they can bring to bear.
Biden is arming Israel and they need the bombs and 155 mm shells. He is basically doing everything Bibi wants— so far there is no evidence that there is any red line Netanyahu can cross that would change this. I don’t think he is being pressured— this is who Biden is. His first instinct was to brush off the death toll and all that has changed— slightly— is the smarmy rhetoric.
And voters have zero leverage except the threat not to vote for him. I have already said I will vote fir him but honestly it doesn’t matter in my case— if Biden can’t win my state he can’t win at all.
Here is a good piece on this issue—
https://www.columnblog.com/p/the-profound-nihilism-of-gaza-voter
Biden is arming Israel and they need the bombs and 155 mm shells. He is basically doing everything Bibi wants— so far there is no evidence that there is any red line Netanyahu can cross that would change this. I don’t think he is being pressured— this is who Biden is. His first instinct was to brush off the death toll and all that has changed— slightly— is the smarmy rhetoric.
And voters have zero leverage except the threat not to vote for him. I have already said I will vote fir him but honestly it doesn’t matter in my case— if Biden can’t win my state he can’t win at all.
Here is a good piece on this issue—
https://www.columnblog.com/p/the-profound-nihilism-of-gaza-voter
Donald – I’m not disagreeing that Biden is being true to form here (though the Israeli government firmly believes that he’s at best a fair weather friend, hard as that is to believe). I’m saying that I don’t believe that even if he were to have an unlikely change of heart on this and try to withhold those munitions, that he’d be able to do so with anything short of a veto, because we know that the house would send that foreign aid bill to the Senate and that at least a few Dem senators would feel obliged to vote for it.
And I’m not sure if he could count on congress not to overturn his veto.
And if he did veto and manage to keep it, I don’t know that he would win reelection or that the Dems would keep either the House or Senate.
At best I think Biden could win a temporary moral victory (assuming, against type, that he were to go against his history and try to put limits on Israel).
Do you (any of y’all) think that Biden could find a way to win over these groups that are upset with his Gaza stance and not lose an equal or larger number of pro-Israel supporters in the process? If so, how? I’d like to know how that might be done.
Donald – I’m not disagreeing that Biden is being true to form here (though the Israeli government firmly believes that he’s at best a fair weather friend, hard as that is to believe). I’m saying that I don’t believe that even if he were to have an unlikely change of heart on this and try to withhold those munitions, that he’d be able to do so with anything short of a veto, because we know that the house would send that foreign aid bill to the Senate and that at least a few Dem senators would feel obliged to vote for it.
And I’m not sure if he could count on congress not to overturn his veto.
And if he did veto and manage to keep it, I don’t know that he would win reelection or that the Dems would keep either the House or Senate.
At best I think Biden could win a temporary moral victory (assuming, against type, that he were to go against his history and try to put limits on Israel).
Do you (any of y’all) think that Biden could find a way to win over these groups that are upset with his Gaza stance and not lose an equal or larger number of pro-Israel supporters in the process? If so, how? I’d like to know how that might be done.
Nous— I don’t know. I see polls that say the majority of Americans, including many Republicans, favor a ceasefire, but somehow I don’t doubt that if Biden favored it somehow it would go against him.
But I don’t feel for him because I don’t think he even wants to do that.
Beinart is about where I am. You have to scroll down a bit to where he starts talking about UNRWA.
https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/biden-and-gaza-is-cruelty-the-point
I am not as shocked as him because I think our political culture is like this in general— seemingly decent people just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that their policies could be immoral..
Nous— I don’t know. I see polls that say the majority of Americans, including many Republicans, favor a ceasefire, but somehow I don’t doubt that if Biden favored it somehow it would go against him.
But I don’t feel for him because I don’t think he even wants to do that.
Beinart is about where I am. You have to scroll down a bit to where he starts talking about UNRWA.
https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/biden-and-gaza-is-cruelty-the-point
I am not as shocked as him because I think our political culture is like this in general— seemingly decent people just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that their policies could be immoral..
Do you (any of y’all) think that Biden could find a way to win over these groups that are upset with his Gaza stance and not lose an equal or larger number of pro-Israel supporters in the process? If so, how? I’d like to know how that might be done.
If you are asking if there are more “Israel, no matter what” supporters or more “Palestinians, no matter what? supporters, I think there is no real doubt that the former are far more numerous. Especially among the people who turn out and vote.
But perhaps you are asking whether there is a way to change Israel’s behavior? I doubt it, unless there is effectively a coup to dump the current Israeli government. Or is there a way to otherwise manage to arrange a ceasefire? Biden could call for a ceasefire. But would it happen? Today, no. There seems to be a fair amount of diplomacy happening, necessarily out of the public eye. That might result in some joint action which would get a ceasefire. But I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.
In particular, suppose Biden just flat stops sending munitions to Israel? As noted, that would just get a bill passed (over his veto, if necessary) to mandate it resuming. Best, the very best, case would be if that bill also authorized aid to Ukraine. But whether the nihilists the the House would let that happen is dubious IMHO.
Do you (any of y’all) think that Biden could find a way to win over these groups that are upset with his Gaza stance and not lose an equal or larger number of pro-Israel supporters in the process? If so, how? I’d like to know how that might be done.
If you are asking if there are more “Israel, no matter what” supporters or more “Palestinians, no matter what? supporters, I think there is no real doubt that the former are far more numerous. Especially among the people who turn out and vote.
But perhaps you are asking whether there is a way to change Israel’s behavior? I doubt it, unless there is effectively a coup to dump the current Israeli government. Or is there a way to otherwise manage to arrange a ceasefire? Biden could call for a ceasefire. But would it happen? Today, no. There seems to be a fair amount of diplomacy happening, necessarily out of the public eye. That might result in some joint action which would get a ceasefire. But I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.
In particular, suppose Biden just flat stops sending munitions to Israel? As noted, that would just get a bill passed (over his veto, if necessary) to mandate it resuming. Best, the very best, case would be if that bill also authorized aid to Ukraine. But whether the nihilists the the House would let that happen is dubious IMHO.
I would feel sympathy for alternate universe Biden who didn’t give Israel bombs to drop on civilians, because Congress recently rejected a proposal to put human rights conditions on that aid.
But in this universe Biden and most Democratic and Republican politicians bear some responsibility for the dead Gazan children. And I think it is good that many voters are outraged. I don’t want Trump to win in November and will vote for Biden but this has a cost— it tells politicians that they will pay no price for supporting Israel no matter how badly it behaves. I think people should be torn up about this.
I would feel sympathy for alternate universe Biden who didn’t give Israel bombs to drop on civilians, because Congress recently rejected a proposal to put human rights conditions on that aid.
But in this universe Biden and most Democratic and Republican politicians bear some responsibility for the dead Gazan children. And I think it is good that many voters are outraged. I don’t want Trump to win in November and will vote for Biden but this has a cost— it tells politicians that they will pay no price for supporting Israel no matter how badly it behaves. I think people should be torn up about this.
I understand, Donald. I’m just afraid that what we fear is true: at least from a game theory standpoint, there is no domestic electoral cost for giving Israel aid even if Israel is using it to kill thousands of civilians, but there is a significant downside for opposing them.
Crossing Israel is a lot like crossing the NRA that way. I think both lobbies work on the same basic playbook with the same basic effect.
I understand, Donald. I’m just afraid that what we fear is true: at least from a game theory standpoint, there is no domestic electoral cost for giving Israel aid even if Israel is using it to kill thousands of civilians, but there is a significant downside for opposing them.
Crossing Israel is a lot like crossing the NRA that way. I think both lobbies work on the same basic playbook with the same basic effect.
Oh, there is an electoral cost either way for Biden. There is no cost for Republicans supporting Israel, because while Trump does have a few supporters who are critical of Israel ( I have seen a few), they are negligible— probably most evangelicals are Israel supporters and are either pro Trump or if they are never Trumpers they mostly support Israel and oppose Trump for other reasons. They might find it easier to support Biden since he is pro Israel.
But Biden could lose Michigan. He might lose other states if people are disgusted enough. Though if the war ends the damage might be limited to Michigan.
All the electoral calculations aside, I think it is morally necessary for people to tell Biden that in their opinion he is doing a terrible thing. It is terrible how, somewhat paradoxically, democratic politics becomes a reason not to criticize a politician because the other side is worse. Some people manage to walk the tightrope of criticizing while understanding the other side is worse, but it isn’t easy.
Oh, there is an electoral cost either way for Biden. There is no cost for Republicans supporting Israel, because while Trump does have a few supporters who are critical of Israel ( I have seen a few), they are negligible— probably most evangelicals are Israel supporters and are either pro Trump or if they are never Trumpers they mostly support Israel and oppose Trump for other reasons. They might find it easier to support Biden since he is pro Israel.
But Biden could lose Michigan. He might lose other states if people are disgusted enough. Though if the war ends the damage might be limited to Michigan.
All the electoral calculations aside, I think it is morally necessary for people to tell Biden that in their opinion he is doing a terrible thing. It is terrible how, somewhat paradoxically, democratic politics becomes a reason not to criticize a politician because the other side is worse. Some people manage to walk the tightrope of criticizing while understanding the other side is worse, but it isn’t easy.
All the electoral calculations aside, I think it is morally necessary for people to tell Biden that in their opinion he is doing a terrible thing. It is terrible how, somewhat paradoxically, democratic politics becomes a reason not to criticize a politician because the other side is worse.
I entirely agree that Biden, or any politician for that matter, should be open to criticism. On this or any other issue. I think the problem is with the assumption, particularly in the media, that criticism equals not voting for the politician being criticized. If that were true, nobody would ever vote for anyone but themselves.
I have the same problem with the “popularity” polls. Ask me how happy I am with any politician, actually pretty much anyone in any field, and I can find something I disagree with. Depending on the day, my disagreement might well reach a level of exasperation where I’d say I’m unhappy with their performance. Even if, given a real world choice, there’s no question I will support them. Possibly even enthusiastically.
All the electoral calculations aside, I think it is morally necessary for people to tell Biden that in their opinion he is doing a terrible thing. It is terrible how, somewhat paradoxically, democratic politics becomes a reason not to criticize a politician because the other side is worse.
I entirely agree that Biden, or any politician for that matter, should be open to criticism. On this or any other issue. I think the problem is with the assumption, particularly in the media, that criticism equals not voting for the politician being criticized. If that were true, nobody would ever vote for anyone but themselves.
I have the same problem with the “popularity” polls. Ask me how happy I am with any politician, actually pretty much anyone in any field, and I can find something I disagree with. Depending on the day, my disagreement might well reach a level of exasperation where I’d say I’m unhappy with their performance. Even if, given a real world choice, there’s no question I will support them. Possibly even enthusiastically.
I think the problem is with the assumption, particularly in the media, that criticism equals not voting for the politician being criticized. If that were true, nobody would ever vote for anyone but themselves.
I think the issue is more how criticism, generally, affects voting, generally. It’s not that a given person’s criticism of a given politician means that person won’t vote for that politician. It’s that a sufficient level of criticism generally on a sufficiently important issue for voters will affect the vote.
[Imagine if Donald thought criticizing Biden on Obsidian Wings would make a bunch of us (pretend there were way more of us), living in swing states, vote for Rump. He might make the calculation that it wasn’t worth it, despite feeling strongly about it.]
I think the problem is with the assumption, particularly in the media, that criticism equals not voting for the politician being criticized. If that were true, nobody would ever vote for anyone but themselves.
I think the issue is more how criticism, generally, affects voting, generally. It’s not that a given person’s criticism of a given politician means that person won’t vote for that politician. It’s that a sufficient level of criticism generally on a sufficiently important issue for voters will affect the vote.
[Imagine if Donald thought criticizing Biden on Obsidian Wings would make a bunch of us (pretend there were way more of us), living in swing states, vote for Rump. He might make the calculation that it wasn’t worth it, despite feeling strongly about it.]
If the US had ranked choice voting (which can be done without amending the constitution) or proportional representation (which cannot), then we’d have an avenue through which we could express moral values through voting. Single district, first-past-the-pole voting is too crude a measure of voter preference, and pushes candidates to make all manner of cynical calculations based mostly on the worst urges of the voters and the outsized influence of single issue fanatics.
If the US had ranked choice voting (which can be done without amending the constitution) or proportional representation (which cannot), then we’d have an avenue through which we could express moral values through voting. Single district, first-past-the-pole voting is too crude a measure of voter preference, and pushes candidates to make all manner of cynical calculations based mostly on the worst urges of the voters and the outsized influence of single issue fanatics.
What happened to Peter Beinart?
He used to be one of the bete noirs during the Iraq war 20 years ago an now we’re pretty much on the same page.
It gives me hope, but I still want to know what happened – girlfriend? fatherhood? spiritual crisis?
What happened to Peter Beinart?
He used to be one of the bete noirs during the Iraq war 20 years ago an now we’re pretty much on the same page.
It gives me hope, but I still want to know what happened – girlfriend? fatherhood? spiritual crisis?
Donald, and anybody else, what are your thoughts on this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/31/opinion/biden-iran-israel.html?unlocked_article_code=1.SE0.szSQ.PqusP50U9-Ib&bgrp=a&smid=url-share
Donald, and anybody else, what are your thoughts on this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/31/opinion/biden-iran-israel.html?unlocked_article_code=1.SE0.szSQ.PqusP50U9-Ib&bgrp=a&smid=url-share
I usually consider Friedman just noise, but this makes me wonder
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/01/biden-israel-settler-violence-palestinians-executive-order
I usually consider Friedman just noise, but this makes me wonder
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/01/biden-israel-settler-violence-palestinians-executive-order
Gftnc
Friedman can’t ever argue for anything that isn’t about his version of fighting the Bad Guys. In this case Iran, He ignores human rights violations committed by the Good guys unless they become something that can’t be ignored and that stand in the way of something he wants to see happen. The Saudi war on Yemen— Friedman ignored that for years because he wanted a Saudi alliance with Israel. His driving ideal seems to be one where the US and the corporate executives he admires run the world in the way he used to talk about back in the 90’s— human rights issues matter solely to the extent that they get in the way of that vision.
Basically, though, it looks like an attempt at reviving the Biden- Trump vision of creating an alliance of Israel and the Arab monarchies around the Gulf against Iran. Hard to do now without a Palestinian state, so they have to try to cobble one together instead of just pretending to care I have trouble picturing what sort of Palestinian state they think they will persuade the Israelis to accept. I suspect that getting them to accept any state at all will be so difficult they will jump for joy and then put all the pressure on some US- designated Palestinian leader to accept whatever is offered.
It all seems a bit unlikely.
Novakant— Beinart has been gradually changing for years now. I am can’t remember how far back it goes. But now he is sort of the Platonic ideal of what a liberal should be, imo.
Gftnc
Friedman can’t ever argue for anything that isn’t about his version of fighting the Bad Guys. In this case Iran, He ignores human rights violations committed by the Good guys unless they become something that can’t be ignored and that stand in the way of something he wants to see happen. The Saudi war on Yemen— Friedman ignored that for years because he wanted a Saudi alliance with Israel. His driving ideal seems to be one where the US and the corporate executives he admires run the world in the way he used to talk about back in the 90’s— human rights issues matter solely to the extent that they get in the way of that vision.
Basically, though, it looks like an attempt at reviving the Biden- Trump vision of creating an alliance of Israel and the Arab monarchies around the Gulf against Iran. Hard to do now without a Palestinian state, so they have to try to cobble one together instead of just pretending to care I have trouble picturing what sort of Palestinian state they think they will persuade the Israelis to accept. I suspect that getting them to accept any state at all will be so difficult they will jump for joy and then put all the pressure on some US- designated Palestinian leader to accept whatever is offered.
It all seems a bit unlikely.
Novakant— Beinart has been gradually changing for years now. I am can’t remember how far back it goes. But now he is sort of the Platonic ideal of what a liberal should be, imo.
The idea that Biden might advocate for a “demilitarized” Palestinian state in the occupied territories once they have built up enough institutions would have been a halfway decent plan a year ago.
Hard to build an institution out of rubble while you are starving and there is no housing to be found.
I can’t imagine that this doctrine could work, let alone HOW it would work.
As far as the Axios piece, I note only that the Israeli Finance Minister quoted who claims that the idea of a campaign of settler violence is an anti-semitic lie is himself living in an illegal settlement in the West Bank and living in a house that was built illegally on the outside of that illegal settlement. And he’s the Finance Minister.
I don’t think that there is a chance in hell that a Biden Doctrine like what was suggested can coexist with an Israeli government like the one we have at this moment. It sounds more delusional than aspirational.
The idea that Biden might advocate for a “demilitarized” Palestinian state in the occupied territories once they have built up enough institutions would have been a halfway decent plan a year ago.
Hard to build an institution out of rubble while you are starving and there is no housing to be found.
I can’t imagine that this doctrine could work, let alone HOW it would work.
As far as the Axios piece, I note only that the Israeli Finance Minister quoted who claims that the idea of a campaign of settler violence is an anti-semitic lie is himself living in an illegal settlement in the West Bank and living in a house that was built illegally on the outside of that illegal settlement. And he’s the Finance Minister.
I don’t think that there is a chance in hell that a Biden Doctrine like what was suggested can coexist with an Israeli government like the one we have at this moment. It sounds more delusional than aspirational.
HSH—
Yeah, I am torn. Gaza is extreme because it is on the front pages far more than Yemen, but it is the same sort of issue that gets me worked up.
I want people to be outraged. I want Biden to feel pressured. I don’t want Trump to win. Hell, I even sympathize ( to some degree) with the argument that Biden deserves more credit than he gets on domestic issues especially on the economy. So I am kind of a mess.
LJ— I would wait and see. That was something they should have done years ago. The Israeli position never made sense. They could argue they had no partner for peace— true or not, they had no right to build settlements and we should have made aid and support conditional on that. It is ultimately the Israeli government that is responsible, not just the most violent extremists.
But I don’t think Palestinians will forgive Biden for the Gazan dead.
HSH—
Yeah, I am torn. Gaza is extreme because it is on the front pages far more than Yemen, but it is the same sort of issue that gets me worked up.
I want people to be outraged. I want Biden to feel pressured. I don’t want Trump to win. Hell, I even sympathize ( to some degree) with the argument that Biden deserves more credit than he gets on domestic issues especially on the economy. So I am kind of a mess.
LJ— I would wait and see. That was something they should have done years ago. The Israeli position never made sense. They could argue they had no partner for peace— true or not, they had no right to build settlements and we should have made aid and support conditional on that. It is ultimately the Israeli government that is responsible, not just the most violent extremists.
But I don’t think Palestinians will forgive Biden for the Gazan dead.
My comment was not so much about Biden but more on whether Friedman tapped into something actually being discussed. I agree that it is really late in the day, it would have been better had this been done earlier, though how soon after 7 Oct is really tough to say. I also agree with nous about the actual possibility of a Biden doctrine actually working. But I’m not sure what else would work, so I guess it is better than nothing?
I’m also curious how much things like this factor into it
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/31/biden-pro-palestine-protest-israel
My comment was not so much about Biden but more on whether Friedman tapped into something actually being discussed. I agree that it is really late in the day, it would have been better had this been done earlier, though how soon after 7 Oct is really tough to say. I also agree with nous about the actual possibility of a Biden doctrine actually working. But I’m not sure what else would work, so I guess it is better than nothing?
I’m also curious how much things like this factor into it
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/31/biden-pro-palestine-protest-israel
lj – could also be trying to get ahead of UK pressure to recognize Palestine:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/01/uk-could-recognise-a-palestinian-state-before-a-two-states-deal-david-cameron
lj – could also be trying to get ahead of UK pressure to recognize Palestine:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/01/uk-could-recognise-a-palestinian-state-before-a-two-states-deal-david-cameron
Nous, that’s interesting. I’ve been watching Sunak and the postmaster scandal, so I’ve gotten the impression that it was total chaos and the UK was dealing with all the homegrown problems. Also, a quick google suggests a conservative backlash to the idea (no links, they are things like the Spectator and the Torygraph) but if I were Cameron, I’d want to put as much distance between myself and the dumpster fire of the Tory Party.
Nous, that’s interesting. I’ve been watching Sunak and the postmaster scandal, so I’ve gotten the impression that it was total chaos and the UK was dealing with all the homegrown problems. Also, a quick google suggests a conservative backlash to the idea (no links, they are things like the Spectator and the Torygraph) but if I were Cameron, I’d want to put as much distance between myself and the dumpster fire of the Tory Party.
Cameron is an integral part of the dumpster fire: first Brexit, then more recently corruption (the Greensill scandal).
Cameron is an integral part of the dumpster fire: first Brexit, then more recently corruption (the Greensill scandal).
True, though I do get the impression that Cameron (unlike Johnson) is pretty embarrassed at the way things turned out. He called for Brexit thinking he would be able to get a handle on the reactionary right of the party and it bit him on the ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJb-4mlAKas
I may be looking too deeply, but I think yes, he’s an idiot but I also think he’s well aware that he “screwed the pooch” (not to be confused with any other animal, that’s a whole different thing) In fact, I wonder if he pushes thru with the recognition of Palestine just to get some payback on the elements of the right that made the whole thing so toxic.
True, though I do get the impression that Cameron (unlike Johnson) is pretty embarrassed at the way things turned out. He called for Brexit thinking he would be able to get a handle on the reactionary right of the party and it bit him on the ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJb-4mlAKas
I may be looking too deeply, but I think yes, he’s an idiot but I also think he’s well aware that he “screwed the pooch” (not to be confused with any other animal, that’s a whole different thing) In fact, I wonder if he pushes thru with the recognition of Palestine just to get some payback on the elements of the right that made the whole thing so toxic.
lj, I think your first para is exactly right, and he is not in the same league of arseholes as BoJo because not quite as narcissistic, for example. But he thought he could handle the reactionary right out of pure arrogance, and did not realise what he was dealing with in the country (in all fairness, not many people did). I also blame Frank Luntz for giving him a quite unwarranted leg-up when he was running for the Tory leadership. Please ignore the fact that this was written by a now justifiably cancelled journalist (on the basis of sexual impropriety) – I saw this happen, and I remember it very well:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/dec/10/comment.conservatives
Through no fault of his own, show-business made Cameron leader of the opposition. David Davis had the strongest base among activists and MPs. The opinion polls declared Kenneth Clarke the frontrunner among the wider public. Neither man was a clear election winner, however. Cameron came from nowhere because Newsnight commissioned a focus group run by American pollster Frank Luntz that appeared to prove that the young politician could become extraordinarily popular and the Conservatives believed him. The desperation of the Tories in 2005 produced an election without precedent. The findings of a focus group drove a hitherto obscure politician to the leadership of a major political party. Not a focus group hired by party managers anxious to uphold the best interests of their cause, but by a broadcaster as interested in entertainment as reputable market research.
By the standards of the old-fashioned journalists who looked down their noses at Frost, Luntz was an astonishing pollster for Newsnight to commission. He had spent much of the previous decade helping the Republicans find smarmy ways to spin tax cuts for the rich and dismiss global warming as scaremongering.
lj, I think your first para is exactly right, and he is not in the same league of arseholes as BoJo because not quite as narcissistic, for example. But he thought he could handle the reactionary right out of pure arrogance, and did not realise what he was dealing with in the country (in all fairness, not many people did). I also blame Frank Luntz for giving him a quite unwarranted leg-up when he was running for the Tory leadership. Please ignore the fact that this was written by a now justifiably cancelled journalist (on the basis of sexual impropriety) – I saw this happen, and I remember it very well:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/dec/10/comment.conservatives
Through no fault of his own, show-business made Cameron leader of the opposition. David Davis had the strongest base among activists and MPs. The opinion polls declared Kenneth Clarke the frontrunner among the wider public. Neither man was a clear election winner, however. Cameron came from nowhere because Newsnight commissioned a focus group run by American pollster Frank Luntz that appeared to prove that the young politician could become extraordinarily popular and the Conservatives believed him. The desperation of the Tories in 2005 produced an election without precedent. The findings of a focus group drove a hitherto obscure politician to the leadership of a major political party. Not a focus group hired by party managers anxious to uphold the best interests of their cause, but by a broadcaster as interested in entertainment as reputable market research.
By the standards of the old-fashioned journalists who looked down their noses at Frost, Luntz was an astonishing pollster for Newsnight to commission. He had spent much of the previous decade helping the Republicans find smarmy ways to spin tax cuts for the rich and dismiss global warming as scaremongering.
Just lost a comment in the spam folder, because of wrong handle. Would be very grateful to have it rescued, because I am too tired to resurrect it!
Just lost a comment in the spam folder, because of wrong handle. Would be very grateful to have it rescued, because I am too tired to resurrect it!
Thank you!
Thank you!
I don’t like Cameron either, but this is interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/01/uk-could-recognise-a-palestinian-state-before-a-two-states-deal-david-cameron
Foreign secretary suggests after a ceasefire, UK would not need to wait for end of what could be years of talks on a two-state solution.
Is there a policy shift happening?
I don’t like Cameron either, but this is interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/01/uk-could-recognise-a-palestinian-state-before-a-two-states-deal-david-cameron
Foreign secretary suggests after a ceasefire, UK would not need to wait for end of what could be years of talks on a two-state solution.
Is there a policy shift happening?
Donald, apparently the shift on Beinart’s thinking happened between
2006 (The Good Fight)
https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780060841614
and 2010 (The Icarus System)
https://www.harperacademic.com/book/9780061998034/the-icarus-syndrome/
This might seem slightly obsessive on my part, but I’m interested in how people change their minds.
Donald, apparently the shift on Beinart’s thinking happened between
2006 (The Good Fight)
https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780060841614
and 2010 (The Icarus System)
https://www.harperacademic.com/book/9780061998034/the-icarus-syndrome/
This might seem slightly obsessive on my part, but I’m interested in how people change their minds.
I’m interested in how people change their minds.
God knows we should all be interested in how people change their minds!
I’m interested in how people change their minds.
God knows we should all be interested in how people change their minds!
Eeek, as I pressed “post” I realised my comment included “we should all…”. I have been holding back in trepidation, but: for this and all future usages of this construction, I just want to emphasise that, when I use it, this means “it would be very useful, or an excellent idea, for one to be…”
Eeek, as I pressed “post” I realised my comment included “we should all…”. I have been holding back in trepidation, but: for this and all future usages of this construction, I just want to emphasise that, when I use it, this means “it would be very useful, or an excellent idea, for one to be…”
Eeek, as I pressed “post” I realised my comment included “we should all…”. I have been holding back in trepidation
I’m not understanding why “we should all…” would be a problem. I might, in principle, disagree about whether or not we should. But the construction itself? Not seeing an issue. (But then, I’ve been known to think/say “everybody should…” myself.)
Eeek, as I pressed “post” I realised my comment included “we should all…”. I have been holding back in trepidation
I’m not understanding why “we should all…” would be a problem. I might, in principle, disagree about whether or not we should. But the construction itself? Not seeing an issue. (But then, I’ve been known to think/say “everybody should…” myself.)
I admit to liking David Cameron. Successful people tend to see themselves as ‘masters of the universe’ – it’s a sense of entitlement born of rewarded effort. And it’s broken by personal stuff going wrong – in Cameron’s case, his firstborn’s illness and death taught him that no, living right, by your own lights, does not guarantee that all will be well. And the same applies to everyone else. Including me.
I admit to liking David Cameron. Successful people tend to see themselves as ‘masters of the universe’ – it’s a sense of entitlement born of rewarded effort. And it’s broken by personal stuff going wrong – in Cameron’s case, his firstborn’s illness and death taught him that no, living right, by your own lights, does not guarantee that all will be well. And the same applies to everyone else. Including me.
Successful people tend to see themselves as ‘masters of the universe’ – it’s a sense of entitlement born of rewarded effort.
I find it hard to see what “rewarded effort” in the sense of any successful accomplishment gave Cameron his sense of entitlement. It seems to me he has or had the sense of entitlement common to so many old Etonians (against whom, as a tribe, I have no tremendous prejudice, having known many excellent ones), whether justified or not. As someone recently said (I can’t remember who), before becoming a politician and ascending to PM via the process I discussed above, his main aaccomplishment was being a PR man for Carlton TV. And reports on his history there were mixed. Here’s one, but I have read others:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/20/david-cameron-the-pr-years
As for the illness and death of his son, nobody who watched and listened during that time can have been unmoved, and one would have had to be a monster not to pity him, and his family, wholeheartedly. But suffering does not necessarily ennoble, and it is meted out to the worthy and the unworthy on what seems to be an impartial basis.
Successful people tend to see themselves as ‘masters of the universe’ – it’s a sense of entitlement born of rewarded effort.
I find it hard to see what “rewarded effort” in the sense of any successful accomplishment gave Cameron his sense of entitlement. It seems to me he has or had the sense of entitlement common to so many old Etonians (against whom, as a tribe, I have no tremendous prejudice, having known many excellent ones), whether justified or not. As someone recently said (I can’t remember who), before becoming a politician and ascending to PM via the process I discussed above, his main aaccomplishment was being a PR man for Carlton TV. And reports on his history there were mixed. Here’s one, but I have read others:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/20/david-cameron-the-pr-years
As for the illness and death of his son, nobody who watched and listened during that time can have been unmoved, and one would have had to be a monster not to pity him, and his family, wholeheartedly. But suffering does not necessarily ennoble, and it is meted out to the worthy and the unworthy on what seems to be an impartial basis.
“But suffering does not necessarily ennoble, and it is meted out to the worthy and the unworthy on what seems to be an impartial basis.”
As mentioned above, one question is “what causes people to change their minds?”, and while one might wish that discussion, study, and quiet contemplation could do the job, the most efficient way to get people to re-evaluate and “change their mind” is trauma. Disasters, personal tragedy, all that stuff.
Now, some change their minds in a good direction, some in a bad direction. Which leads to:
“The beatings will continue until morals improve”
TFG needs a massive bloody beatdown. To make him better.
“But suffering does not necessarily ennoble, and it is meted out to the worthy and the unworthy on what seems to be an impartial basis.”
As mentioned above, one question is “what causes people to change their minds?”, and while one might wish that discussion, study, and quiet contemplation could do the job, the most efficient way to get people to re-evaluate and “change their mind” is trauma. Disasters, personal tragedy, all that stuff.
Now, some change their minds in a good direction, some in a bad direction. Which leads to:
“The beatings will continue until morals improve”
TFG needs a massive bloody beatdown. To make him better.
But suffering does not necessarily ennoble, and it is meted out to the worthy and the unworthy on what seems to be an impartial basis
Yes, random stuff happens at random. But people who’ve been closely affected by it – Cameron and Biden for example, are better politicians for it. The same, in a small and private way, applies to me, and perhaps – but she can speak for herself – GftNC.
But suffering does not necessarily ennoble, and it is meted out to the worthy and the unworthy on what seems to be an impartial basis
Yes, random stuff happens at random. But people who’ve been closely affected by it – Cameron and Biden for example, are better politicians for it. The same, in a small and private way, applies to me, and perhaps – but she can speak for herself – GftNC.
I do not think suffering has made me a better person, or a better anything, but I am quite prepared to believe it does with some people, and Pro Bono may well be (probably is, from things he has told us before) one of them. I saw no sign of Cameron being a better politician for it (but perhaps this Palestine stuff is such a sign), although I do with Biden.
I do not think suffering has made me a better person, or a better anything, but I am quite prepared to believe it does with some people, and Pro Bono may well be (probably is, from things he has told us before) one of them. I saw no sign of Cameron being a better politician for it (but perhaps this Palestine stuff is such a sign), although I do with Biden.
I think that if someone has a worldview that associates reward with moral rectitude and suffering with moral failing, then finding oneself suffering can occasion some reflection, and could lead to greater empathy. But then it could also lead to resentment or the embrace of grievance, depending on what sort of narrative one fits to the suffering.
I think that if someone has a worldview that associates reward with moral rectitude and suffering with moral failing, then finding oneself suffering can occasion some reflection, and could lead to greater empathy. But then it could also lead to resentment or the embrace of grievance, depending on what sort of narrative one fits to the suffering.