Felagund
2d ago
Sorry, I kind of have to agree with ArjinFerman—at least, it would be disastrous for the forum if everyone started adopting your tone and habits of response. You're consistently above-average in antagonism and dismissiveness. And this definitely is one of the factors in you drawing more downvotes—it's often the reason if ever I downvote you. That of course doesn't address the overall problem of voting based on whether people like it driving dissenting views away, but it could make a meaningful difference in your particular case.
So I guess, two.
Felagund
12d ago
South Africa's Election
Since the 1994 election, the ANC (African National Congress) has been in power, and been running South Africa into the ground. Unemployment is sky-high, crime is rampant, power outages are now common (and usually scheduled), by the name of "load shedding", corruption is ubiquitous.
For the first time, in the election occurring one month from now, the ANC risks losing power. But this may not be a good thing, as more radical groups will be eager to form a coalition.
Some background on racial history may be needed.
There are four racial categories used by the government for people in South Africa:
-
White people are of European descent, of course. There are two main populations: people of British ancestry, who more frequently speak English, and Afrikaners, who are descended mostly but not entirely from a mix of Dutch, German, and French ancestry, and speak Afrikaans, a language descended from Dutch. White South Africans have a distinct group identity. They don't think of themselves as European imperialists, or something. Afrikaners in particular see the Great Trek when they traveled inland after the coming of the British as important ethnic history.
Currently, white people make up about 8% of the South African population. This is the largest population of European descent anywhere in Africa. Demographically, they are relatively older and have lower fertility rates, so expect this percentage to shrink. Per wikipedia's data, they make up about 5% of those in the 2011 census who were under 15.
Also of note is that white South Africans are disproportionately wealthy. South Africa has one of the highest levels of inequality in the world. Some portion of this is due to legacy from Apartheid, as whites were privileged economically and lived in regions closer to economic activity, by statute. And, of course, European institutions were better set up to lead to economic prosperity.
(To prevent economic competition with black workers was actually one of the driving factors behind the establishment of Apartheid.)
-
Unlike in the US, where colored is taken to be a slur of sorts, in South Africa, coloured is a distinct racial classifier. Coloured people are mixed race, descended from a variety of groups. They are the most ethnically and genetically diverse ethnic group on earth. Among the genetic influences are: the Khoekhoe pastoralists that once lived in western South Africa prior to the arrival of the Europeans, white European ancestry, ancestry from the black Bantu groups, both from eastern South Africa and from slaves imported from elsewhere in Africa, and east and south asian ancestry, especially Malaysians. This population is not homogeneous; different places may have different ratios. Coloured people primarily speak Afrikaans, and make up a large portion of the population in the Northern and Western Cape, the two westernmost provinces. They make up about 8% of the population.
-
Black refers to the portion of people who have ancestry primarily from the Bantu ethnic groups of Africa. South Africa has many such groups—of the 11 official languages, 8 are Bantu. The largest and most important Bantu populations are the Xhosa and the Zulu peoples, who together are about half of the black population. (The Zulu have existed in their current form for surprisingly little time: the Zulu empire was built in the early 1800s, when the small Zulu clan, under Shaka, violently conquered and incorporated all their neighbors, before being conquered by Britain decades later.) About 81% of South Africa is black.
-
And Asians, who make up about 2% of the population.
I'm not really entirely familiar to what extent more fine-grained ethnic distinctions matter to group identity and decision-making, as I don't live in South Africa.
Some Relevant History
Apartheid (pronounced uh-par-tate, not -tide) is infamous, of course. Running up until 1994, the Afrikaner National Party was in power, and had regulations keeping racial separation and government-backed privilege of whites in place. Among the key causes in its formation was white Afrikaners wishing not to compete for employment with black people in the early 20th century.
1994, with the end of Apartheid and the election of Nelson Mandela was a key moment. South Africa managed to transition relatively peacefully and democratically, as these things go, though not without incident.
The ANC, or African National Congress, was formed under Apartheid. It was communist (the Soviets trained them), and participated in violence. Nelson Mandela, though a peacemaker late in life, was much less of one earlier. And his wife, Winnie Mandela, was far more violent: she was known for necklacing, that is, drenching tires in gasoline, putting them around the necks of victims, and setting it on fire. But nevertheless, the transition in the 1990s was generally peaceful, with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and so forth. Since then, the ANC has remained in power. The ANC remains economically left-leaning. It has implement several racial programs, including Black Economic Empowerment, a form of affirmative action, which pushes black ownership and management, especially, among companies. (You may think that this would lead to whites struggling to find work, but this seems not to be the case; white unemployment is far lower than the national average, though still higher than in the US). The ANC has struggled with high levels of corruption.
Under the ANC, South Africa has struggled. Among the more visible parts of this is the electricity situation. Eskom, the state utility apparatus, has had pervasive issues with corruption. Contributing further to this is issues with crime: stealing electricity (that is, illegally hooking up lines to the power grid, to get free power) is common in the slums, increasing the load on the system, and people have been known to steal the copper from the power infrastructure in order to sell it.
Further, much of South Africa is doing poorly economically more broadly. The unemployment rate is somewhere around 32%, which is the highest in the world, slums exist, roads are often poorly maintained, and overall things aren't great. There has been some inflation of the rand (their currency), though certainly nowhere near hyper-inflation levels.
Crime rates are high in South Africa. Several South African Cities are listed as among the cities with highest murder rates in the world. Of course, the same could be said of the US cities, and it requires that you have a government capable enough of tracking and releasing those statistics even to show up, so that may not be the best measure. Nevertheless, crime rates are still high by any standard. People have gates with bars in front of their doors, and often fences around their property, at least, among the well-to-do. Many live in gated communities, with private security. There is four times as much private security as police officers.
All this said, South Africa is still among the most prosperous African countries, so there is illegal immigration.
Since 1994, South Africa has had four presidents, all of the ANC. First, and most famous, Nelson Mandela. Second, was Thabo Mbeki. Under both of these people, corruption was common, but it was under the third, and most controversial, Jacob Zuma (president 2007-2017), that it became the most extensive and well known.
While most of those in leadership in the ANC were Xhosa, Jacob Zuma is Zulu, which has made him fairly popular with much of the Zulu populace. He has been known for sexual license, for more rampant and open corruption, most notably, with the India-born Gupta brothers, and pushed for left-wing economic populism and racial grievance.
Since 2017, Cyril Ramaphosa has been in power. While some were hopeful that he would be better than Zuma, South Africa has not done especially well. Controversy has continued with Zuma, with him spending some time in jail, before being released early.
The ANC is currently polling at around 40% nationally, under 50% for the first time since 1994. This makes this election a little unstable, as some coalition will have to be formed.
Enough of history of South Africa and the ANC, now to the opposition parties.
Opposition Parties and the Election
The largest such party is the Democratic Alliance (DA). The DA has long held power in the Western Cape province, where there are fewer Black Africans, and has also managed to govern some cities in the province of Gauteng, where the largest city (Johannesburg) is, and one of South Africa's three capitals. Otherwise, though, it has been the largest opposition party.
The DA is generally considered to be much more competent. The Western Cape has been doing the least badly of all the provinces. The DA is fairly centrist, economically, and opposes affirmative action and the radical redistribution programs suggested by more extreme elements within South African politics. Unfortunately, it also has something of a reputation of being the "white people's party." Its base is certainly not entirely white, as it has been getting around 20% of the vote, of late, which is more than double the entire white population, but that is not entirely unfounded. The leadership is more white, at least, and white people are disproportionately likely to vote DA. It's also relatively popular among the Coloured community. But this isn't good for getting elected. Helen Zille, the leader of the DA from 2009 to 2019, also had the scandal of saying that colonization was a net good for South Africa, which, while maybe true, is probably something you should try to avoid saying when you're a minority party trying to hold together a coalition of like-minded people. The DA would like to have more power less centralized, and more at the provincial level, presumably so that they can get to manage more of the western cape and be less hamstrung by the national government.
The EFF (Economic freedom fighters) was formed in 2013, when Julius Malema and his friends broke off from the ANC. The EFF is very far left wing: they advocate for confiscating land and wealth from white people. If you saw online the discourse about the "Kill the boer!" chants, these were those people. Malema has said that he is not calling for white people, for now. (Yes, the "for now" was part of what he said.) They are communist in ideology, like the ANC. Malema has advocated for aid to Hamas. They wish to (quoting wikipedia here), "expropriate White-owned farmland, nationalise the mining and banking sectors, double welfare grants and the minimum wage, and end the proposed toll system for highways." (Remember, South Africa is at 30% unemployment, and economically relatively stagnant.)
It would be bad if the EFF ended up in power. Because in this upcoming election, the ANC is likely to fall belower 50%, the DA has been worrying about a "doomsday coalition" between the ANC and the EFF.
The EFF has drawn most of its voting from young black men. It received about 11% of the vote in 2019, and was feared to be polling at maybe 17% of the population for this upcoming election, up until a few months ago, but is now back down to around 10%.
A few months ago, Jacob Zuma announced the formation of the MK, (uMkhonto we Sizwe), named after the old paramilitary wing of the ANC. Zuma has wished to be eligible, which is constitutionally questionable because of a 2021 conviction. Nevertheless, he still has had courts rule in his favor, though the process is ongoing.
The EFF and MK are fairly aligned, and seem to be willing to cooperate after the election. The MK supports such things as "expropriating all land without compensation and transferring ownership to the people under state and traditional leadership custodianship," change to a more African-based legal system, replacing the constitution, making college (including through post-graduate) free and compulsory, and providing permanent jobs to everyone capable and willing.
MK is most popular among Zuma's base, so it is doing best in KwaZulu Natal, the Zulu homeland. It has been polling overall at about 10%, taking votes primarily from the ANC and EFF.
The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) is affiliated with the Zulu monarchy. Historically, they've done well with Zulus, though that was less the case when Zuma headed the ANC. They support power being transferred to provincial governments rather than the national government, and don't seem crazy. They are polling at only 5% or so.
ActionSA, my vague sense is, like the DA, but more black, and is polling at maybe 3% or so. They left the DA in 2020.
The VF+ (Freedom Front plus) are right leaning, and most popular with Afrikaners. They are in favor of the rights of minority groups, such as Afrikaners and Coloureds, and are against affirmative action, and in favor of free markets and small government. They are in favor of Cape Independence. I think they may have something of a reputation of right-wing racist extremists, because they're Afrikaners disproportionately, and Apartheid was a thing. This perception is funny, because they are policy-wise one of the parties least in favor of racial discrimination. I think they're currently my personal favorite, but I haven't looked excessively deep. They're only polling at 2% or so.
There are more parties.
Of course, all the parties are also gesturing at how Their One Plan Will Work to fix the electricity situation, reduce crime, lead to more jobs, etc.
The DA has organized a Multi-Party Charter to work against the ANC, EFF, and MK, including all the other parties listed above. I haven't yet worked out what exactly that's supposed to accomplish.
It is still unclear what coalition will be formed, and what policies that will result in. I could imagine the EFF or MK being in a ruling coalition could lead to many whites seeking to leave the country.
Provinces
A few provinces are also up in the air. The Western Cape, governed by the DA for the last 15 years, looks like there is a chance that it loses control of the province, or at least has to enter into coalition. This would be bad, as the Western Cape is the province doing least badly. The Referendum Party was recently formed, and is running in the Cape, in the hopes that the DA will need them to enter into coalition to run the province, in order to hold a referendum for cape independence, to get the Western Cape to secede from South Africa. The VF+ also supports cape independence. There were polls not long ago indicating that it is also relatively popular with the people of the cape, with at least a referendum agreed to be worthwhile by the majority. If any such thing happened, it would be strongly disliked by most of the country. The referendum party and VF+ support it, under the right of self-determination, and in order to stop South Africa from dragging down the Western Cape. The Western Cape is the only province that is not majority black, which means that many think cape independence is racist. Of course, even if a referendum occurs, and passes, which are both not especially likely, it's still probably unlikely South Africa just lets them go, and international politics isn't going to want to help the white-coded people by the imposition of pressure.
KwaZulu-Natal, the Zulu homeland, is also uncertain. The MK is doing well, but the ANC, DA, and IFP will all also be relevant.
Gauteng, the most populated and most urban province, containing Johannesburg, Pretoria, Soweto, etc. could also end up governed by a coalition other than the ANC. It was barely won by the ANC in 2019, so it will probably need to be some coalition after this election, but who knows the constituents.
All the others should be taken by the ANC, I imagine.
I guess I'll have to report back later (no idea how long coalitions will take to sort out) how that all turns out. It's looking like we will have a situation where the ANC, DA & co., and MK+EFF will each have enough of a block that any two of them would be able to coalition, but none on their own. I'm not sure what will be most likely to form from that.
If anything radical happens, like the Western Cape seceding, or South Africa Zimbabweing itself, that'll be sure to have an effect on the discourse around the country. (And of course, more importantly, on the people themselves.)
Felagund
1d ago
So you're saying, yes, the move is to pressure others to buy US debt or otherwise prop up the otherwise insolvent US government.
I'm afraid I mostly didn't track what you were saying in that second-to-last sentence.
worthless promises
Promises only have worth because they can be trusted.
Felagund
2d ago
Sure, debt's just a human construct. But it's one that we currently depend on heavily in order to do things. Like, yeah, we can just not pay people (ignoring the constitution for a second), but then we'll have a harder time raising enough money to do things, because they won't trust the US's promises. (And yes, you can do things without money, but money's kind of how our whole economic system runs, and it's hard to have efficient alternatives.)
If we have the raw resources and the might to decide how they get divvied up, the rest is just semantics.
To be clear, you're recommending something like a tribute system, since you've mentioned the military? Or is this just divvying up domestic goods? The US is a net importer, I believe. (And incentivizing new innovation and production is an important role of an economic system beyond just dividing existing goods.)
Felagund
2d ago
No, you're right, you were reasonable in that exchange, and I probably shouldn't have said that. I was the one less able to control my tongue keyboard. I guess I was thinking of other comments of yours. If all your comments were like the ones in that exchange, well, I'd prefer it if you'd get further into the weeds of what precisely was going on, but you were certainly civil enough.
If by extend and pretend, you mean the current policy, doesn't that end up requiring more of the world's resources each time, and is growing at a faster rate than the US's or world's economy?
I think infinite borrowing can be done at a sustainable rate; just not the one we're at. If it's below inflation, or below economic growth, there's not much of a problem. We're just in a much worse situation than that, and I think the way you tell that isn't by looking at who has e.g. the largest military, but at interest rates, amount of government spending spent on debt, rates of economic growth, etc.
Felagund
5d ago
This might run out, with devastating effect, some day.
If people lose confidence in the US dollar, suddenly they'll try to get rid of it, leading to an increase in domestic supply and dramatic inflation, and foreign goods in general will be much more expensive.
Felagund
2d ago
We really need a new poll. Maybe I'll ask Trace what his old questions were and see if I can put a form together.
Felagund
5d ago
I'm reading the general lesson of this is that:
Republicans (and congressmen in general) should assume that government agencies will not listen to their intent and do everything they can to interpret every law passed in as left-conforming a way possible.
Accordingly, minimize dependence on government agencies for one's legislative agenda, and prefer to shrink power when possible.
Felagund
3d ago
Good relationships also exist.
Got any tips for staying sane while single?
What's your life ordered around? Is there anything you care about? How best can you make the world better for your having been here?
Living for something is significantly better than living hedonistically.
(I submit as an option, Pascal's wager, for your consideration.)
What do you do for fun?
Have friends whom I can talk to about the things I care about or take interest in. Play board games. Spend way too much time on the internet.
Felagund
2d ago
Are there any particular current events you'd like hot takes on, at the moment?
Quit with the magical thinking.
There is always a mechanism. It might change, be fluid, sure. But somewhere, somehow, if the US wants to do stuff, it needs to get people willing to do stuff. And there always, always, must be some mechanism by which that's happening, some way or ways to motivate people to put labor and materials toward whatever it wants.
What I'm asserting is that the current method (pay for it with dollars, using promises of future dollars in order to get enough dollars to cover what taxation isn't sufficing for) is being done in an unsustainable fashion, and will have to stop, or otherwise be revised eventually.
I was saying that that problem would eventually be remedied by printing money, which should have the effects I discussed (A worldwide shift away from dollars, to some extent).
(Heavy taxation or cutting spending are also possible, but probably harder to get through the political process.)
So what are you suggesting instead? You keep bringing up force. Are you suggesting that we'll impose a tribute on other countries? That's possible. (Though definitely a big departure from now, when we give countries a ton of money, instead of exacting it)
Edit: If innovation in AI or something causes sufficiently large US-centered economic growth to increase tax revenue enough to pay for things, that could also work, provided it's not also accompanied with corresponding spending increases.
Edit 2: If the US does impose tribute, ancient Athens might be a cool comparison.
Felagund
5d ago
But how much does that actually matter to the value of the dollar?
My guess would be that the general value prospect to people and countries abroad of holding dollars are that:
- Dollars have low inflation, so they're one of the better currencies to sit on.
- The US is fairly reliable, as nations go, so it can be expected to remain stable.
- Dollars are useful for trade with the US, and the US is an important part of the world economy.
- Other places and people want dollars too, so they work well as a currency.
But if 1 fails (due to, say, running out of people willing to finance US debt, meaning that we need to start printing money to fund things or pay back debtors), then some will drop the US dollar for other currencies. This will drive down the cost of the dollar, that is, cause inflation, which will lead to more of the same.
I don't expect 3 and 4 to go anywhere, but I think 1 and 2 could change, in a way that would meaningfully affect demand for dollars, and hurt US prosperity.
That said, that's mostly just from me thinking things through myself, not something better vetted, so is there some reason that I'm wrong, or something I'm missing?
Felagund
4d ago
The US will never default, we are in a better place than all other countries, hence the strong dollar.
Okay, the US won't default, but at some point it'll need to start printing money, at least, to avoid it.
That is:
The US wants to pay for stuff.
To raise funds to do so, it sells bonds.
Demand for bonds is not limitless.
US spending keeps growing.
Eventually it will hit the limit of those willing to buy US debt.
At that point, it must either print money to pay for things, or fail to pay for things (that is, default).
Unless you think all other players are totally irrational investing in it?
It wouldn't surprise me. But really, all you need to buy a bond is just to think that things will be fine within the lifetime of the bond, which is entirely possible even if you think it's going to collapse in a few decades.
If we are defaulting, the rest of the world has already fallen apart and it doesn't matter. Like people who buy gold for the apocalypse...when what you really need is beans and bullets.
I see no reason to think the former is true. And the latter depends heavily on what kind of apocalypse you're in.
Felagund
5d ago
Wait, she's the one who's the problem, and not him? I thought she was just trying to bring up the problem that those who profess that we can just print money and not worry about debt don't understand why we borrow, showing that there's a problem with their model.
Felagund
4d ago
You keep saying this, and not addressing what I said about the mechanisms of how the US would end up in a situation of scrambling to avoid default.
Which point in that list was wrong (following "that is:")?
What is the actual mechanism by which the US can keep borrowing? Who, specifically, wants US dollars, and will keep buying up our debt indefinitely, even as it continues to grow to be a larger and larger share of US and world GDP?
Instead of just giving a, "we'll be fine, someone will stop it," as you have us sleepwalk into disaster.
Felagund
5d ago
I don't expect the demise of the dollar before the US comes close to defaulting on its debt, which is still a ways away. But the deficit's steadily been growing relative to GDP. (And even then, I don't expect a total collapse.)
Felagund
6d ago
I've usually seen it to mean something having some level of pro-free market (with, of course, a pejorative sense, and while pretending to refer to a precise group), which this didn't exactly seem like.
Felagund
8d ago
It happens to me whenever it's deep enough in a thread that I'd need to click a "more comments" button to see it.
Felagund
10d ago
Eh, is it actually all that weird to consider rationalist nerds elites?
My sense was that EA, at least, had plenty of money, especially before FTX exploded.
And I'm sure they're having a sizable impact on AI policy.
How much of current AI work can be traced back to Yudkowsky influencing people to work on AI?
I was trying to explain to friends who the guy is, but I don't quite have a sense of the scope of his influence.
More options
Context Copy link