Opt-out
14d ago
I’ll give him the respects I think he is EHC. Also probably put myself in that group. He was a really good writer with interesting opinions. It’s how he built a following. He’s changed whose he writing too and gone down market and thinks he’s the protector of inconvenient truths.
Still a wordcell EHC but he does have talent.
Jake Paul some reason reminds me of him since I started seeing him promoting betr. He’s already rich with plenty of ways to monetize, but choosing to monetize your brand promoting gambling just feels wrong to me. Just reminds me of Hannania going down the path he is now. Feels wrong to sacrifice the truth for outrage and probably money.
I guess I accept politicians will play political games and be dishonesty and build outrage. But I just don’t see a point of reading a writer that wants to be inflammatory. I guess the media has a niche here too msnbc/fox have definitely done it. And it makes money. But I think Hannania did have actual talent so I am sad to see him go down that path.
Opt-out
14d ago
Refused to read his writing. And I do think some people prove themselves to be not worth reading. I do think he’s an amazingly talented writer who can have great insights. I won’t read him because I don’t believe he writes his true beliefs and writes to be inflammatory. I don’t believe a writer like that is worthy of my time. I want to have honest debates. Few people want that so he probably makes more money being inflammatory. I also don’t listen to Tucker Carlson or Candace Owen’s.
Most of the time I disagree with you. I’ll still read what you say because I think you are writing your true understanding of the world and perhaps will say something I didn’t think about or make me think about how I can express my view better. I’ll listen to AOC because I think she’s genuine and want to know why she thinks the way she does.
Opt-out
14d ago
It’s likely true that suburbanization was increasing as cars became viable but I think it’s also fair that city crime and decline of amenities also encouraged suburbanization. Some % of the population would have preferred to remain in cities if the QOL in cities had not declined.
University of Chicago is probably the most obvious area where declining QOL prevented the formation of an industrial cluster around the university.
Most things do have multi-factors but I do think declining QOL significantly accelerated the move to suburbs.
Opt-out
14d ago
I 100% believe he doesn’t post serious beliefs. That’s why I call it trolling.
When you know the intelligent counter argument and likely believe the intelligent counter argument but post the inflammatory other opinion I consider it trolling.
Opt-out
14d ago
It’s called sanewashing. Both sides obviously do it.
I do think the IDF comment is a bad area to do it and is basically antisemitic. Why do I say this? I have a lot of respect for the NYPD and honestly think they do a really good job and if shouldn’t get criticism. NYC does actually have low crime rates. Though sometimes I think this may just be filtering and superior demographics of the populace similar to how Florida’s superiority with Hispanic education is likely superior demographics and heavy selection of rich white Latinos.
Opt-out
14d ago
It’s tough to know because American cities suck. And that’s my point we’ve done a lot of mitigation to unacceptable levels of violence post Great Migration.
A good city you could let your 6 year old walk to first grade a 10 minute walk away because you weren’t worried about a dangerous homeless person giving them trouble. You would have parks nearby. All those amenities are in the suburbs now. And things would be cheaper.
So I understand why you like suburbs better because cities are not good for kids today. And they have lower amenities.
Opt-out
14d ago
He has had an honest conversation where he admits he just does things for clicks and money. I think it was Corfnas that talked about that. His earlier writings were much different. Then he changed.
It’s common with influencers. They are much different with the camera off than they are in person.
Opt-out
14d ago
Hanannia is just a troll now. His old schtick is troll the right wing regardless of whether he agrees with what he is saying. He’s completely posts-truth now and just playing for whatever he thinks generates the most musks bucks.
I don’t think he’s truly a left-wing Democrat now. Probably votes straight Republican but he thinks he gets the most money now trolling. I don’t think he’s worth reading anymore.
Opt-out
14d ago
90% * 10 kids = 9 kids 10% * 0 kids = 0 kids The average is therefore 9 kids. Which is far more family than you get being middle class. If the goal is protect the women and children then taking the 10% death rate for a chance for huge wealth is the smart play.
It’s a Frey move. Walder Frey could just have more kids and wives. The rest of the Lords though usually did use their money to have bastards. And the only reason trueborn kids were protected is because the family name and honor had real value.
I think I would gladly take that bet provided it didn’t feel like suicide as that is banned by my god.
Blacks die earlier too. So funneling money to old people would disproportionately favor whites over blacks. If this was not true and SS benefited blacks more then potentially we would have killed SS in the ‘90s and gone to a 401k for all system.
Though Europe does a lot of old people stuff too so I don’t think that’s the driving force.
Opt-out
14d ago
It kind of fits. I guess nothing is a perfect parallel. Lincoln personality wise isn’t Caesar and the issues he faced seemed less like Caesar’s time while modern America seems much more like Caesar. FDR does seem to be the start of true Empire America.
Opt-out
14d ago
-
K-shaped economy and a struggling native class. Widespread slavery made the rich very rich in Rome but the average Roman Citizen saw lower wages.
-
Bread and Circus. Basically the policy proposed today. And he’s definitely done circus.
-
Legal attacks and threats of imprisonment followed by a crossing of the Rubicon and winning.
-
Assassination. Trump did survive.
-
Potential - An adopted son taking over after death. Vance obviously. Though Kushner could fulfill this role
-
I think Rome also had a fall in morality and falling tfr in the native population
Opt-out
14d ago
Are you female? I ask because for the average man with 3 kids the risks is well worth it. I will probably have 3 kids. If I had 500m I would likely have 10 kids. The number of kids a male has is highly correlated with wealth. The math makes sense for a guy to take these risks. Less so for a female.
The modern American state is fairly good for poor high IQ kids. College is essentially free. So this feels like a very good risks reward trade.
Can we just agree Trump is now Caesar?
I think it’s clear the American Republic has fallen. The question is will we get an Augustus?
Democracy just doesn’t work in non Anglo and definitely non European societies. It’s time for an emperor.
Edit: I’m probably being too dramatic. It likely felt like the Republic had fallen during the last migration wave in the thirties and fourties. But we likely only have a window to fix it.
Opt-out
14d ago
Americas Bad Cities are costing you
This is where Cremieux goes through the loss of agglomeration effects due to American cities being awful low density places. The loss of the American City he largely blames on the Great Migration and the associated crime waves. He then goes thru how white flight has mostly only occurred with black populations especially ADOS and occurs less with immigrants from Africa.
One of the things with woke is it made people think about ways to refute their ideas. One of them is that white people just hate black people so they did white flight. Turns out the data and original source material people started to look rediscover showed a rise in crime before white flight. People accepted those narratives for decades because we had already mitigated the costs and it was just easy to go with the old narratives. We also accepted a narrative that Americans just liked to live in the suburbs. The actual answer for the preference is crime was too high in cities.
The costs of mitigation Cremieux lists is likely not the full costs. It’s likely everything about city design has been done to allow for unofficial segregation. Often this has been done thru zoning to keep prices high. High home prices means high prices for everything in safe cities as your working class either needs to be able to buy housing in the community or compensated for a long community.
Not being able to do official segregation has basically made the American urban lifestyle very expensive and even more expensive if you have kids. You can’t just buy a cheap house and send your kids to public schools because of the demographics. Which forces you to either live in an expensive suburb or use private schools. This also means you largely can’t be poor in your nice community because your community refuses to have low costs of living options because that would allow the more criminally inclined people to move in.
Today we talk about foreign migration and not domestic internal migration. Once you do mass migration you can’t unring tbe bell. You are now stuck with new demographics. In the case of the great migration I think it basically destroyed Americans urban environments. And now American cities suck. And we had to convince ourselves that we loved living in the suburbs instead of the suburbs being a mitigation for good schools/safety.
I am also open minded that the Great Migration led to increased American wealth because people opposed sharing economic resources and it had a macro effect of limiting socialism in the US and the political paths Canada/Europe went down.
Opt-out
15d ago
I agree many wars have a much higher risks but for the purpose of choosing to take AI risks I think a big difference exists. You do AI for money. Choosing to fight in many of those wars is possibly death if you don’t fight.
I will limit this to things people do for money and not honor or religion.
-
Wars of conquest. Like conquistadors in Mexico certainly faced high death rates but also a great chance at being fabulously wealthy with lots of heirs.
-
Drug dealing. Both the low end dealers seem to take a lot of risks for little gain and the higher ups. Mexican Cartel leaders death rates are definitely far above 10%. S American cartels have gotten safer and less violent but they were very risky for a while. Bootleggers and Italian Mafiosos no doubt faced higher risks.
-
Donald Trump. Maybe 10% is too high but assasination risks or perhaps for him live in prison risks were quite high.
-
Long distance trade was quite dangerous for much of history
I think maybe we could exclude the older examples when life was much harsher and not comfortable like today but Colombian drug cartel bosses were often already quite rich. Guys who already had cattle farms and estates. There are a lot of examples of cartel guys who didn’t need to take the risks but just wanted more money and power. It’s obvious a fairly large % of people take the risks.
My gut says it would be smart for me to take a 10% risks of instant death for a 90% chance of $500 million. I might turn it down for religious reasons as suicide is a mortal sin and that kind of feels like sort of suicide.
Opt-out
15d ago
Most people would take a 90% risks of immense wealth or a 10% chance of death in 10 years. People have gambled for far less at a far greater risks of their life.
I think the average person would take the risks but you can certainly find many humans will to risks that.
Opt-out
15d ago
Historically the US has had to do that when different races and cultures co-exists. After the Great Migration the cities that experience migration had to significantly increase their police forces to deal with crime.
Opt-out
15d ago
I didn’t want to denigrate architects but mostly wanted to pick an white collar occupation that could rise in stature with higher productivity as excess wealth could be spent on design and community design.
Opt-out
15d ago
I thought it always had a reputation for bad pay versus the amount of education required. In part because it attracted people who thought it would be enjoyable. Maybe I’m wrong on that. And there are definitely some routes you can make money like getting more into construction management/development.
I needed a career to pick as an example where human taste would have value versus AIs being very productive. Something that is affluent tastemaker and architect seemed like it fit that.
I would have been against this 5 years ago or super against it outside of that time frame. Here’s my thoughts:
-
American fiscal capacity is amazing now. It really feels like we can run an economy with only 10-15% of the population working and everyone else on benefits or make-work programs. With half of our smartest people playing zero-sum games like trading or market making on prediction markets. It would be nice to get back to 80% of people working but I don’t know how. For all the things we subsidize I think subsidize children is the best.
-
I don’t like it with current demographics. If we deport more I like it more. 50% of blacks are on government programs or government jobs (basically fake). I am fine with sharing with them now because we are rich enough but seems like we have migrant communities that will max abuse it.
-
Way better than unlimited disability for benefits. If we are going to do UBI it should be for everyone.
-
Decent chance the amount of people who need to work falls to <5% of the population by 2040 so something needs to happen. This actually isn’t rare event in human history. At one point 90% did agriculture so it’s not impossible we basically figure out how to make everything without working. The rest of the economy will be tastemakers. Weirdly architect was a terrible career for a while but the jobs of the future will be the tastemaker - someone who can make a neighborhood look nice.
-
Somehow I think rich and poor people will still exists even with unlimited material wealth. Baltimore or Haiti will still be a ghetto while Greenwich and Palm Beach will not be. It’s just the poor areas will have a lot of stuff but lack all the other things that make a community great. Being high IQ, Conscientious, honest, fun to be around, good looking etc will still matter. The Southside of Chicago will likely still be shooting each other even when unlimited money exists.
Trump plus no bill is better than Harris plus bill.
Even if we accept the bill was a net positive by itself (it still had loopholes) executive authority is still far more important. And giving the Biden administration a win that they were doing something could have flipped the election which polling showed as much closer at the time. He ended up winning big so perhaps you still could have done the bill.
It would be impossible to pass anything right now without eliminating the fillibuster. I think we should get rid of it but so far we haven’t gone down that path. It would costs some political capital; though in my opinion smart people on both sides are thinking that we have too many checks/balances and eliminating them to boost the power of congress would be a good thing.
If the GOP got rid of the filibuster now it would give the Dems another issue to run on even if their smart people think it’s a correct decision.
One of the reasons I like getting rid of the filibuster the most is it would be a check on the Supreme Courts power as the SC would be more comfortable telling Congress to fix legislation.
Opt-out
16d ago
It’s really tough to write legislation that can’t be interpreted in a way that creates loopholes. I feel like you need something else to keep things like asylum from being abused. Especially since you kind of want asylum law to be broad enough to be useful in an emergency.
“do I want Richard Hanania in my boat with me or the median suburban dad?“
No I don’t trust him. I trust AOC more than him because she’s honest. So if where doing gulags yes hang him. He knew better. But keep the AOC people because they made a mistake.
I wouldn’t punish a good man who just wrote what he thought was true.
More options
Context Copy link