Anti-Antiplanner
A week or two ago a commenter brought up Randal O’Toole, an ex-Cato Institute researcher who was kicked out for believing that single family zoning was a valid expression of property rights (or something). While I disagree with most of his shtick, it’s hard not to have a grudging affection someone who’s such an obstinate libertarian that even the other obstinate libertarians don’t want to hang out with him
O’Toole is probably more known for his work on transit, of which his focus on suburbs is kind of a subset. Famously, he’s deeply against public transit of almost all forms and strictly pro-car. Ironically, this is despite the fact that he personally is a train enthusiast and avid cyclist who claims to have never driven a car to work. His research is generally solid and numbers are legit, you can read a good summary of his transit ideas on the charmingly titled “Transit: The Urban Parasite.”
His broad claims are that transit both costs more and is more polluting “per-passenger miler,” or per person moved around, when compared to cars, and that transit ridership continues to fall even when we raise subsidies.
These stats seem basically true, but are they a natural free market outcome, or do they specifically reflect a choice landscape that emerged from the very fact that we spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the interstate highway system and countless smaller road projects, and that single family zoning, parking minimums, and resultant sprawl have purposely built an environment where much of transit is impractical and rendered uncompetitive?
These are massively relevant questions because all O’Toole’s criticisms of trains are not inherent to their engineering, but in very large part contingent on the way the investment in car infrastructure saps away their ridership. Trains are not more expensive and polluting because they lack the capacity to move around more people but because (and this is O’Toole’s argument) most seats are unfilled lately, so a lot of energy goes into moving only a few people. But if ridership was higher the numbers would be completely reversed!
Flush train cars blow actual cars out of the water on every metric we care about: affordability, environmental damage, and efficient use of space. Ranking urban planning based on its contingent worst performance rather than its societal potential feels like bizarrely short term thinking.
Nor should we assume the present situation is irreversible. The strength of O’Toole’s argument about trains becoming obsolete rests on emphasizing a decline in ridership in the last few years, a timeframe that of course did include a global pandemic, a pretty clear reason to invest in a car and stay away from crowds. Critic Jarrett Walker notes that:
When he tells us that ridership “peaked,” he’s confessing that he’s playing the “arbitrary starting year” game. To get the biggest possible failure story, he compares current ridership to a past year that he selected because ridership was especially high then. This is a standard way of exploiting the natural volatility of ridership to create exaggerated trends. Again, the Los Angeles Times article that got O’Toole going made a big deal out of how ridership is down since 1985 and 2006, without mentioning that ridership is up since 1989 and up since 2004 and 2011. Whether ridership is up or down depends on which past year you choose, which is to say, it’s about what story the writer wants to tell.
Likewise, O’Toole’s much cited constant cost overruns and astounding costs per mile of construction on transit projects aren’t written into stone; they’re in large part due to the enormous legal, compliance and consulting costs caused by hopelessly inefficient procurement processes, environmental rules (“the wealthy DC suburb of Chevy Chase have led a decades-long crusade against the light rail project, which will benefit the entire region, by claiming that a ‘tiny transparent invertebrate’ might be at risk”), and land use regulations - government restrictions that O’Toole himself has compared to communism! Further high but unproductive expenses are maintenance backlogs (catching up for previous years of underfunding) and security staff. But O’Toole himself argues that security costs could be massively reduced simply by making turnstiles more secure.
Looking at other countries with less institutional corrosion, the costs of building transit are significantly cheaper:
On a per mile basis, America’s transit rail projects are some of the most expensive in the world. In New York, the Second Avenue Subway cost $2.6 billion per mile, in San Francisco the Central Subway cost $920 million per mile, in Los Angeles the Purple Line cost $800 million per mile.
In contrast, Copenhagen built a project at just $323 million per mile, and Paris and Madrid did their projects for $160 million and $320 million per mile, respectively. These are massive differences in cost.
Furthermore, all of the above mentioned lines are profitable (though the Paris subway did record a year of loss in 2020). Which isn’t hard to imagine; if our transit system were 1/6th to 1/8th as expensive as it is now then we’d be profitable as well. O’Toole criticizes endlessly unsustainable transit subsidies, but ignores that absent America’s uniquely high costs, well-managed transit can actually be a boon to municipal coffers.
In contrast, he touts cars’ light subsidy footprint (up to 40% of costs but supposedly as low as a penny per passenger mile) - but of course these figures are depressed by outsourcing the costs of the actual vehicles to the users. [edit: updated from Walterodim pointing out we don't know how many people own new vs used cars] Experian records the average person paying $716 a month on new car payments and $525 on used car payments. Adding data from the AAA on insurance, fuel, and maintenance brings that up to $704 - $894 a month, or $8448 - $10,278 a year. O'Toole cites the total cost of cars in 2017 (with lower numbers than these 2023 costs) as worth $1.15 trillion, or “only” 6.8% of car owner’s incomes.
This is an enormous cost for normal people, and stealth deflates the actual costs of driving infrastructure when compared with transit. In contrast, most subways tickets can be bought for about $2.50, or $1200 yearly across a twice-a-day, five-day-a-week commute - nearly one tenth of the cost borne by the car owner.
Further stealth subsidies include municipal parking minimums that landlords pass on to the public in the form of higher rents, and that also unnecessarily burden business operations: “When the US Census Bureau surveyed owners and managers of multifamily rental housing to learn which governmental regulations made their operations most difficult, parking requirements were cited more frequently than any other regulation except property taxes”. Lest this seem like nitpicking, one pricing estimate, using conservative numbers, finds the total value of parking in the US exceeds the value of even the cars themselves, roughly doubling off-sheet privatized costs.
Tl;dr: Lest this seem overly critical, I actually hold a contrarian’s fondness for O’Toole and respect his work. Still, in every instance O’Toole seems to be taking transit systems that are specifically the worst possible example of their form, out of date, mismanaged, chronically underfunded, their customers drawn away by car infrastructure and their costs artificially inflated by regulations, and then compares them to suburban roadways bolstered by restrictive zoning and generous subsidies, with their costs artificially deflated by outsourcing far higher expenses onto consumers, and then pretends the free market has demonstrated the most efficient mode of travel.
What would privatizing Social Security look like?
”No one’s gonna take away your grandma’s pension.” - José Piñera, Minister of Labor and Social Security in Chile, right before he took away your grandma’s pension.
Privatizing Social Security has been a conservative pet issue for as long as I can remember, despite being politically unlikely and unpopular. Even Paul Ryan, who paid for his college tuition with SS survivor funds, still reminisced on halcyon days of planning with his Delta Tau Delta bros to privatize SS at keg parties. If it were possible, what would it even look like?
The Background
Social Security is a defined benefit, "pay-as you-go-system," funded by the $1 trillion Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and $142 billion Disability Insurance trust funds, paid via payroll taxes, plus a $63.78 billion Supplemental Security Income from the General fund.
Before FDR passed SS, senior citizens were the poorest demographic in America. Nowadays it’s one of the most popular programs and everyone wants to preserve it in some way.
Problem is, we’re going broke.
Since 2010, the fund that SSA uses to pay benefits to retirees has been paying out more money than it has been receiving in taxes. At the current rate, the fund's trustees estimate that it will exhaust its reserves in 2033 and be unable to pay full scheduled benefits.
What if Ayn Rand was Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration?
It should be said that the freest of free market solutions here still imagines coercion of mandatory contributions. Still, the position advocates switching to a privately managed, defined-contribution system, which would get a higher returns by investing in the private market instead of government securities.
Because these are personal accounts, hopefully you fix the problem where an increasingly smaller working population pays for swelling retirees. In reality, those old obligations don't disapear:
Social Security has accumulated trillions of dollars in liabilities to workers who are already retired or who will retire soon. To make room for a new private system, policymakers must find funds to pay for these liabilities while still leaving young workers enough money to deposit in new private accounts. This requires scaling back past liabilities – by cutting benefits – or increasing contributions from current workers. Most large-scale privatization plans also involve major new federal borrowing.
Given that this transition would be pretty expensive and the main benefit is getting to invest in the private market, the counter is: why not just let the government invest in the private market? Such a case is made here.
More Consumer Choice?
A privatized system should give individuals more control over their investment decisions. It’s hard to weigh that benefit against the risk of dumb people ending up with less retirement savings than they get under the current system.
Would Management Costs be Lower?
Surprisingly hard to figure out! SS obviously has no marketing costs and boasts astoundingly low administrative costs of >1%. However, some admin work is outsourced, ie employers and the IRS collect the funding.
But hey, the government’s gonna keep doing all that stuff anyway; a privatized system would just have to duplicate them elsewhere, plus means testing, plus marketing costs.
Costs in proposed plans vary a lot:
In some privatization plans, contributions would be collected by a single public or semi-public agency and then invested in one or more of a limited number of investment funds…By pooling the investments of all covered workers in a small number of funds and centralizing the collection of contributions and funds management, this approach would minimize administrative costs, but it would limit workers’ investment choices.
Another strategy is to allow mutual fund companies, private banks, insurance companies, and other investment companies to compete with one another to attract workers’ contributions in hundreds or even thousands of qualified investment funds. This strategy would permit workers unparalleled freedom to invest as they chose, but administrative costs might be high.
But forget all these technical hypotheticals. The question we’re all wondering is, what does this look like in practice what would a South American military dictatorship do?
El Ladrillo
The largest scale example of a country privatizing its retirement system is under the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile. Initially their rollout was a big success with high returns. However, even Niall Ferguson, a prominent advocate for their system, notes many of the downsides I wondered about above:
There is a shadow side to the system, to be sure. The administrative and fiscal costs of the system are sometimes said to be too high. Since not everyone in the economy has a full time job, not everyone ends up participating in the system. The self employed were not obliged to contribute to Personal Retirement Accounts and the casually employed do not contribute either. That leaves a substantial portion of the population with no pension coverage at all…
On the other hand the government stands ready to make up the difference for those whose savings do not suffice to pay a minimum pension, provided they have done at least 20 years of work. And there is also a Basic Solidarity pension for those who do not qualify for this.
That public pension was in fact created by a socialist government specifically to make up for extremely low coverage under the neoliberal system. I find it pretty damning that the most extreme example of a privatized retirement system ran into all the problems its critics said it would, and handled it in the same way every public system does - through backup government funding. If we’re going to end up doing a mixed market system anyway, it might behoove us to keep our publicly managed system but give them leeway to invest privately, rather than pay a ton to transition to a privatized system then pay more later to fix the holes that left:
Chile’s system hasn’t worked as promised or expected. The creators anticipated that the average worker would save enough to earn 70% of their salary in retirement; the reality has been closer to one-third. They thought the new system would expand the number of workers with retirement funds; instead nearly 40% of Chileans have nothing to fall back on. Rather than improve the lives of Chile’s elderly, most pensioners live on less than the minimum wage...
The private system hasn’t let the government off the financial hook either. The transition period was always going to be expensive as the government footed the bill for those retiring on the public dime without receiving payroll taxes (as these contributions all headed to private accounts). But the government has also had to backstop far more of the new system’s retirees than expected. Officials thought less than 10% of wage earners would rely on public largesse for a minimum pension. Today, more than 40% need the government to step in.
A broader review of the other countries that followed suit seems similarly disapointing:
Starting in Chile in the 1980s, and then in Mexico, Peru, El Salvador, Colombia, Argentina, and Bolivia in the 1990s, countries turned to systems where contributions would be deposited directly in workers’ individual accounts...
the system has done little to stimulate voluntary savings; few workers have channeled additional resources to their accounts. Further, the market for workers’ individual accounts has been far from competitive. On the demand side, workers as consumers of financial products for retirement had difficulty comparing the various combinations of fees and investment options offered by pension fund administrators, particularly when the “product” that workers were buying (or rather, were being forced to buy) would be delivered many years from today. On the supply side, there were few private firms competing, partly because the presence of economies of scale in the administration of funds naturally led to a monopolistic market structure.
Less Radical Funding Solutions
-
Raise Payroll Taxes - “even a modest change, such as a gradual increase of 0.3 percentage points each for employees and employers (or less than $3 per week for an average earner), could close about one-fifth of the gap.”
-
Raise the payroll cap - The payroll tax is actually regressive, exempting incomes over $160,200. “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that subjecting earnings above $250,000 to the payroll tax in addition to those below the current taxable maximum would raise more than $1 trillion in revenues over a 10-year period”.
-
Widen the tax base - “In 1982, 90 percent of earnings were subject to the Social Security tax, but by 2017 the share had decreased to 84 percent.” “Including employer-sponsored health insurance premiums could close over one-third of Social Security’s solvency gap; including other fringe benefits could close one-tenth.”
How much do we actually know about Bronze Age morality?
This is an honest question from someone who doesn’t know a ton about the era.
People here and elsewhere sometimes point out that the Bronze Age Mindset is a bit of a LARP, its followers mostly white collar workers idealizing an unrealistic world they would hate if they inhabited. It’s hard to take people seriously whose main experience with conflict is arguing on Twitter when they exalt the warlike morality of the Iliad or the Odyssey.
My question is: were the actual people writing the Odyssey and the Iliad also LARPing? These are books portraying the height of the Bronze Age civilizations by people who emphatically did not live in them, but rather in their ruins. Today we’re apparently Tanner Greer-maxing because I’m quoting another piece of his to you: “How I Taught the Iliad to Chinese Teenagers.”
I spend about 15 minutes outlining what we know about Mycenaean civilization through archaeological discoveries: the grandeur of their palaces, how they fought, their role in an entire ecosystem of Near Eastern civilizations. But most of all I focus on the mystery of their fall, the “Bronze Age Collapse” that littered the Greek isles with Mycenaean ruins, ruins that would have towered over the humble abodes of “Dark Age” Greece (pictures of Dark Age archaeological finds are included in the slides to drive home this point).
I then have students read Book IV.35-62. Here Hera declares that in exchange for the destruction of Troy, she will allow Zeus to destroy Argos, Sparta, and Mycenae without complaint. These three cities were devastated in the Bronze Age collapse. This gives us another way to think about the Iliad. Post-apocalyptic fiction is a popular genre with high schoolers. But if you actually lived in a post-apocalyptic setting… what would your fiction be about?
Homer’s Greeks lived in the ruins of a golden age. They had forgotten how to write and read, but they still remembered a time when the Aegean was full of great cities, wealthy kings, and enormous armies. The Iliad portrayed that golden world as it was imagined hundreds of years later—and explained why this golden age was no more. It is a true piece of post-apocalyptic fiction.
Do we expect the illiterate, post-apocalyptic Greeks to be the same morally and socially as their highly advanced ancestors? Can we be confident their portrayal of those societies is how the ancients would have portrayed themselves, or could they just be later cultures trying to insert themselves and their customs into that time period? I imagine ancient Greece was a more violent place than modernity, but the portrayal of its inhabitants as people who killed, looted, and enslaved without a second thought - was this really how they felt back then? Or was this the tribal, warlike peoples who came after them back-projecting their contemporary values onto the golden age? When I look up ancient literature in the Bronze Age I don’t see anything from Greece - how much do we really know about these people, how they felt, and what they thought?
Soriek
5mo ago
Staffing Shortages in Nursing Homes
Recently the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee held a hearing about two new Biden Administration rules impacting staffing in nursing homes.
The lay of the land is that everyone in both parties agrees that we have a critical lack of workers in nursing homes. There have been more than 500 long term facility closures in 2020, and we would need to fill 150,000 jobs just to reach pre-pandemic levels. One of the witnesses mentioned that most nursing homes do not have anywhere near the minimum number of staff that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services considers a requirement to be safe. Higher numbers of staffing are also associated with higher quality patient care and lower deaths. Some witnesses related horror stories of nurses not being able to wash patients who had soiled themselves because they were dealing with more urgent medical situations for other patients.
This is especially urgent because by 2030 all 75 million of the boomers will be over 65 and the demand for care will only continue to rise. So the Biden Administration has proposed two rules to address the situation.
1 - The Proposed Minimum Staffing Rule would require there to be a registered nurse on-site 24 hours a day (up from 8 hours currently), and a ratio of one nurse for every 44 residents and one nurse aid for every ten residents.
• Republicans objected that the Kaiser Family Foundation found as many as 80% of nursing homes would not be able to meet the minimum staffing requirements, and compliance costs alone would be tens of millions per state. This would be especially difficult for rural nursing homes where trained staff are rare.
• Democrats responded by pointing out that the rule phases in over three years, gives rural facilities five years, and makes full exceptions for nursing homes that are trying to find staff but can’t.
• Republicans also claimed there simply aren’t enough trained staff out there to be hired, which makes the requirement impossible. It’s unclear if this is true; the witnesses were pretty evenly divided.
• (Related tidbit from outside this particular hearing: Senator Bill Cassidy, Bernie Sanders’ Republican counterpart on the Senate HELP Committee, has complained that we have a shortage of trained nurses partially because many states require nursing colleges to be taught by nurses with masters degrees, who are few in number and already mostly working as practitioners. I can buy this because in my experience looking into other healthcare issues, state level regulations often do make federal laws go much less far. For example pricing transparency rules don’t really matter when states allow hospitals to be monopolies.)
• Democrats responded that the rule provides $75 million in grants to train nurse aids, and also pointed out that Democrats repeatedly have tried to boost federal spending to help with this kind of training and hiring but Republicans were opposed soooo.
2 - The proposed Medicaid Access Rule would require home health agencies to pass through a minimum of 80% of funds to direct health care work force.
• Republicans objected that this only leaves 20% of funds to handle everything else: administrative costs, facilities, training, supervision.
• Democrats countered by demonstrating that non-profit nursing homes were spending on average 43 more minutes per patient each day than for-profit nursing homes, and this held consistent across urban vs rural areas as well as rich vs poor areas. Meanwhile, for-profit orgs are also, obviously, walking away with more profit. Thus, the 80% rule is just a way of ensuring that the federal funds goes to our most critical problem: staffing and patient care, since clearly you can’t rely on businesses choosing to do this on their own.
It's a crappy situation. Basically everyone agrees that the current status quo is unacceptable, but also nursing homes genuinely don't seem to be the funds to hire the desperately needed more nurses, even though they were able to (at least moreso) only a few years ago? The only solution seems to be raising federal funding for nursing homes to hire more people, but this is unlikely to happen any time soon. It would probably be easier to get everyone to agree on stuff like lifting the supply restrictions on nursing colleges, but of course that happens on the state level and is much more complicated to address from the federal side.
Has anyone read Garrett Jones’ “The Culture Transplant” yet? (I haven’t)
I don’t read Scott’s actual blogposts much anymore, but I do read the links, and wanted to discuss Cato Institute Researcher Alex Nowratesh’s recent reviews of the book (1,2). They’re both just blogposts and not overly long so I’d recommend reading them, but I'll summarize the main points.
Jones argues that the “deep roots” of a culture determine economic growth, and that immigrant groups take those roots with them and thus shape the economies they travel to. Deep roots can be measured by SAT*, or “the length of time they have lived under a state (S), lived with settled agricultural (A), and their level of technology at a point in the past (T), [this formula] well predicts their GDP today". (“T" has an * because it’s more important and thus given more weight). However, there’s a lot of ways the deep roots position doesn't predict the things we would expect.
-
“As Bryan Caplan pointed out, there are three big outliers in the deep roots literature: China, India, and the United States. China and India should be much richer, and the United States should be poorer. Three outliers usually aren’t an issue, except these are the three most populous countries in the world.” How useful is the SAT* model if it fully fails to account for a third of the planet?
-
This is particularly bizarre when it comes to the United States, which is in the middle of SAT* rankings despite also being the richest country in the world. This suggests that the US would reap significant economic benefits from pulling in immigrants from countries much less developed and educated, such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Russia.
-
Jones tries to salvage these three outliers by bringing up the importance of institutions, which is fair to say. But if Jones is arguing that the deep roots of immigrant culture shape institutions for the better or the worse, then if they can change institutions for the better at any time this is a huge point against his position: “Does China’s liberalization after the 1970s prove that deep roots were right all along, or does China’s current regression [to economic planning] show it was wrong?” Likewise, several European countries (Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain) fairly suddenly adopted authoritarian regimes with statist economies then a few decades later turned into democracies with significantly liberalized economies, during periods where they did not experience much immigration. Things can change fast!
-
We see the same difficulties when we observe Chinese immigrant groups abroad. Hong Kong and Singapore both have significantly less trust than mainland China (trust is one of Jones’ most important measures for how immigrants should impact culture and growth) but are of course both vastly richer. Hong Kong has near complete Chinese population dominance (96%), just like China, such that the effect of their deep roots should really be what defines their institutions, but instead Hong Kong is much richer than China. Singapore has less Chinese people (75%) than Hong Kong, but has a GDP per capita 76% higher! This is despite the fact that Singapore has a whopping foreign born percentage of 47%, and that their immigration has overwhelmingly come from countries with lower SAT* (which corresponded Singapore’s famous huge increase in growth).
-
There are other odd ways the SAT* expectations don’t seem to add up. A deep roots paper Jones uses for building his theory calculates that an immigrant from China (high SAT*) would have a very slight negative impact on Britain whereas an immigrant from Sub-Saharan Africa (lowest SAT*) would have a slight positive impact. Likewise, Jones claims immigrants from Italy and Spain ruined the economy of Argentina, but both groups came from countries with higher SAT* than Argentina.
-
Extending from this, one popular argument (I think I heard first from Bryan Caplan) was that immigrants might bring economic growth, but also vote for socialist economics which would cripple long run growth. But in Argentina, recent research suggests that the labor movement Jones credits with tanking the economy was not primarily a matter of immigration, but was driven more strongly by native urban workers. Nowratesh also points out that despite popular accusations of disproportionate immigrant participation in the early twentieth century American socialist movement (as measured by foreign language socialist magazines), “the greatest electoral success of the socialist party prior to World War I were in states like Nevada, Oklahoma, Montana, and Arizona - ethnically homogenous states with few foreign born residents”. Likewise, Jones himself has argued elsewhere that the rise of western dirigisme (Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, etc), were backlashes against immigrants by native voters. All of these suggest the major examples of statism were driven by natives, and immigrant predilection towards socialism shouldn’t be our concern - we can still reap economic growth as long as we don’t pick bad policies ourselves.
I’ll add my own objections:
-
In the latter 1800s anglo-saxons in nonconformist sects were much more common in the economically interventionist Republican party, and ethnic white immigrant Catholics and Lutherans were much more common in the laissez faire democrat party. By the New Deal, those political parties continued to draw on majorities of those same ethnic groups, but they had switched policies, such that the Republicans were less economically interventionists and the immigrant-flush New Deal Democrats were extremely interventionist. Shouldn’t deep roots suggest more consistency in policy preferences?
-
England remained overwhelmingly native British until relatively recently, yet went from a significantly laissez faire economy to an incredibly statist one, then back and forth again. You can argue that the larger, earlier transition from the 1800s to the 1900s was a matter of expanding voting rights, but the transition from mid-century labor dominance to Thatcherism to Brexit all happened with a fully enfranchised population.
In conc: if the percentage of high performing ethnic groups or SAT* does not actually reliably correspond to economic growth, and if ethno-cultural groups can change their policy preferences and institutions immensely in short spans of time, doesn’t this all point to a world where deep roots and immigration matter far less than your institutions?
Nowratesh also offers broader critiques about Jones missing relevant literature, mostly encompassing studies that hurt his thesis but also a few that agree with him. Nowratesh also points out that Jones depends a lot on measures of “trust”, but substantive research into building economic models for how trust actually impacts the economy is generally lacking. Not having read any of the literature, or Jones’ book, I can’t really offer much opinion or analysis here, but interested to hear from others who have. I don’t actually have a particularly strong opinion on immigration one way or the other.
What do you think of Napoleon's Legacy?
I, an amateur to the Napoleonic wars, wandered away from Ridley Scott's Napoleon feeling more or less pleased with my night. By terrible mistake I related to a friend who loves the Emperor that I enjoyed the movie, and was informed that the entire film was a piece of British propaganda. I objected that the British were hardly in the movie at all, only to be explained that the things Scott chose to highlight or ignore mostly followed the contours of the British perspective on the conflict. For instance, Waterloo is emphasized because the British played a decisive role, even though Napoleon stood no real chance of victory during his return, whereas the larger Battle of Leipzig which really ended Napoleon's bid for domination wasn't even mentioned because the British weren't there. And of course what about the fact that Napoleon only ever declared war twice while Britain was actively funding other countries to oppose France, and so on and so on.
My friend's counter-narrative of perfidious Albion being the real villain behind the Napoleonic wars is likely no more straightforwardly true than the narrative that France alone was at fault, but it's a helpful reminder that even today there remain vastly diverging perspectives on the immense impact of the man, the myth, and the legend of Napoleon Bonaparte.
For instance, there's also of course his political reforms, which are the part I found myself missing the most in the movie, even though they would have been impractical to include. A while back Scott touched upon a study by Daron Acemoglu claiming that long run growth was much higher in the areas that Napoleon conquered, due to him abolishing guilds, monopolies, and other rent seeking institutions. Rebuttals included people arguing that Acemoglu et al forgot to control for access to coal, after which you supposedly see no impact from Napoleonic conquest remaining.
Or military reforms. Was Napoleon a genius for coming up with military reforms like how to mobilize national resources and break armies down into self-sustaining units that could live on the land and rely less on supply trains? I've heard people argue these were really mostly Ancien Regime ideas crafted after their loss in the Seven Years War. Napoleon only took advantage of the flux of the revolution to be the one to ram them through.
And what about Republicanism and liberalism in general? Did he hasten them along by spreading their ideas farther and faster than they ever would on their own, or did he doom them for decades by encouraging the conservative monarchs to see liberals as a threat to be immediately stamped out, rather than a nuissance that could be tolerated?
So how do you feel about Napoleon's legacy? Was he an expansionist warmonger or a peacemaker driven to conflict by other powers? Was he a brilliant military reformer or mostly an opportunist riding off others' inventions? Did he leave a legacy of economic and political dynamism or barely make a dent? What's your take?
Soriek
6mo ago
The dark old days when we still had users who actually had different opinions.
From Institution Building to Identity Building and Back Again
Tanner Greer’s “Lessons from the Nineteenth Century” is the latest in a series on the decline of American self-governance and institution building.
He offers a comparison between the reaction to the Spanish Flu and Covid-19. In 1918 Americans sprung into action, organized committees on sanitation and medical care, delegated responsibilities, held regular meetings. When the crisis was over these committees had stern handshakes all round and then disbanded, not to burden America with ever more bureaucracy.
In contrast, during the early months of Covid no one seemed to know who was responsible, the major agencies all gave contradictory information that varied week-to-week, grassroots initiative was scattered and weak.
Seemingly we've forgotten how to do what our recent ancestors easily could. Nowadays Americans largely don’t practice addressing problems by creating their own organizations with formal structures and set goals. But back in the day if you were in one of America’s countless settler communities and there was a problem with bandits, or fallen trees covering the road or whatever, there was generally no higher authority to appeal to. If you wanted irrigation, you got together with your friends and you dug some darn ditches.
consider the situation faced by the median 19th century American man in a state like Minnesota or California. He lived in a social, economic, and political world that was largely fashioned by his own hands. Be he rich or poor, he lived as his own master, independent from the domination of the boss or the meddling of the manager. If he had settled near the frontier, he would had been involved in creating and manning the government bodies that regulated aspects of communal life—the school board, the township, the sheriff’s department, and so forth. Even if he was not a frontiersman, he was a regular attendee at the town, city, county and even state government meetings most relevant to his family’s concerns. Between his wife and he, his family participated in a half dozen committees, chapters, societies, associations, councils, and congregations.
In the last century these self-governed settlers have had their local autonomy worn away by the twin forces of modern bureaucracy and late stage capitalism, rule from the capitol beltway and the corporate boardroom. Greer speaks ably to how bureaucracy's distant web of control weaves through our lives from thousands of miles away. I’m more interested in what capitalism and wage labor have done to the American psyche, taking us from a world of self-employed farmers, builders, artisans, and shopowners, to a nation of people who show up when we’re told, eat during designated breaks, and ask permission to go to the bathroom. I’ll quote one of my favorite passages from T.J. Stiles' biography of Vanderbilt:
Still more subtle, and perhaps more profound, was a broad cultural shift as big business infused American life. An institutional, bureaucratic, managed quality entered into daily existence ... More and more the national imposed upon the local, the institution upon the individual, the industrial upon the artisanal, the mechanical upon the natural. Even time turned to a corporate beat. Time had always varied from town to town, even by household...But the sun proved inconvenient for the schedules of nation-girdling railways. In 1883...these “distinct private universes of time” vanished when the railroads, “by joint decision, placed the country - without act of Congress, President or the Courts - under a scheme of four “standard time zones”
The collapse of bottom-up institution building into the modern age of subjects-rather-than-citizens is Greer’s answer both to dilemmas raised by the left, but even more by the “New Right” (notice how different the portrayal of the self-actualized American settler is from the reactionary trope of the idealized beach bum-citizen, unconcerned with his distant dictatorial government). No, Greer says, the malaise in modern society didn’t start in 1776, or with the Enlightenment, or with the reformation. It started when people lost the ability to have a say creating their own world and had to turn solipsistically inward to feel any agency at all:
This week I finished listening to an episode titled “Hellenism and the Birth of the Self.” The parallels between the Hellenistic trends Metzger describes and the problems of the current moment are worth pondering...
Destroyed: a world of cohesive, tradition bound city states whose citizens were joined together by shared loyalty to a polity whose fate was set by these same citizens’ own sweat. In its place: a tangle of marauding empires whose political outcomes were decided by the machinations of the distant few in the despot’s court or the mercenary’s camp...Men who led small and bounded worlds now found themselves the playthings of inconstant forces operating on imperial scales.
The intellectual response to these developments was to turn inward...New faiths were focused less on public goods than private salvation...No longer did great thinkers squabble over the form of the ideal polity, or ask what political communities must do to foster good character in their citizens. Hellenistic philosophy was not focused on citizens. It was obsessed with individual ethics...Like the new religions, their focus was on the soul within a man, not the community of men outside him...
To explain this all Metzger quotes historian Peter Green: “The record we have… speaks with some eloquence to the dilemmas that faced a thinking man in a world where, no longer master of his fate, he had to content himself with being, in one way or another, captain of his soul.”
The modern obsession with “expressive individualism,” whether it be gender-bending woke idpol, or right wingers joining neo-paganism or contrived versions of internet catholicism, is what happens when people have no influence over the outside world and instead must turn inward to the only place they have control over: their own identities. It's all just a desperate screaming attempt to regain a semblance of control in a world that has taken that from us. Everyone could win their modern culture war wishlist, but you still won’t have addressed the root issue that’s driven us from the real world and inward down endless black holes.
To end on a positive note, I’ve been a tiny cog in other machines my entire life, but I’ve tasted the kind of self-governance Greer describes. A long time ago I helped run a campaign for a local politician; the whole team was me and my friends, if we needed more staff we had to convince people to work for us, if we wanted people to vote we had to meet them face-to-face and make our damn case. It wasn’t an important race or anything, but the giddy feeling of having a tangible influence on the world around you, of creating something from scratch with your own willpower, has stayed with me ever since. Not so long ago this was just American life. America has changed, but the skills are there waiting for us to pick up and practice. As the shocked Toqueville said of the people he met in the United States:
there is nothing the human will despairs of attaining through the free action of the combined powers of individuals.
Soriek
6mo ago
Unless they feel such unbearable mental pain from seeing other posters' contrary opinions
This is perhaps ironic on a thread where the OP is still frustrated years later by hearing a single user disagree with the dominant narrative here.
Thucydidean Thursdays (International Updates) 3
Are there synonyms for international or global that start with “T”? If people think it’s a good idea I’ll make these their own separate thread. I worry about it getting less engagement than in the main thread, but it would be cool to have a dedicated international relations day.
As before, please feel free to add updates from any countries you're interested in.
Ecuador
A cheeky near-dictator moment was evaded with President Guillermo Lasso, having previously disbanded the National Assembly after being accused of embezzlement, allowing himself to rule by decree, announced yesterday that he would not run for re-election. Coincidentally or not, the US has ben talking about investigating some of his assets in Florida. Surprisingly, his party has said they’re not going to run anyone either. Unfortunately, the nation has also been hit with some nasty floods…
Haiti
…As has Haiti, along with earthquakes. This country can’t catch a break. The US continues its ill fated search to get somebody, anybody else, to lead a regional intervention into Haiti, and is demonstrating its commitment by putting Vice President Kamala Harris in charge of the search. Jamaica will host a meeting of the Caribbean countries next week to plan out further steps.
Colombia
Colombian President Gustavo Petro is in Havana to hopefully sign a peace agreement with his former rebel group, the Ejército de Liberación Nacional, or the ELN. Tensions have been rocky with them throughout his term, and after being buffeted by a series of corruption scandals in his cabinet, this would be a major victory. Other leftists think the supposed crusade against corruption is partisan, and several former and current (ie Lula) Latin American leaders, plus Jeremy Corbyn and Jean-Luc Mélenchon for some reason, have all signed a letter warning of a “soft coup”.
Argentina
Argentina will now formally join the BRICS New Development Bank (Egypt, Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabi will probably join as well).This should open up Argentina for more access to financing, mainly via China, who has come to play a larger role funding in Latin America in general. Related: “Taylor Swift Argentina Tickets Are a Bargain With Inflation Over 100%"
The DRC
After the Rwandan genocide a bunch of Hutus fled to the neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo, where then-strongman Mobutu allowed them to stay and stage attacks on Rwanda. The new leader of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, pursued them to eliminate the threat; the conflict that followed is legendary for its brutality. The Congo Wars have been formerly over since 2003, but the Hutu paramilitaries were never fully defeated, and now-old President Kagame, still in power thirty years later, funds and arms a Tutsi paramilitary called M23 to fight them on Congolese soil. This has been going on forever, but has attracted a flurry of attention lately. Things became especially acute last year when rebels almost sieged the main Eastern City of Goma, and the DRC has formerly accused the M23 and Rwanda of preparing to stage another attack on the city, which has already become flush with over a million refugees from the conflict. Ironically, the United Nations (or at least a relevant spokesperson) has been calling for the UN Peacekeepers to withdraw and for the DRC to step up handling the rebels themselves. The DRC is also doing terribly in general, with recent protests over falling living standards met with mass tear gas a few days ago.
Ethiopia
The Ethiopian Civil War has been formerly over since November. However, Human Rights Watch has accused the government of continuing to ethnically cleanse the Tigray minority, accusations the government of course denies. Some 47,000 refugees are estimated to have fled to Sudan; the number internally displaced is unknown but assuredly much higher. Ethiopia is also now dealing with new border issues, having recently repulsed an attack from the Somali terrorist group Al Shabaab on its border (the east of Ethiopia is ethnically Somali and has been a source of tension between the two countries in the past).
Iraq
Foreign Affairs offers a retrospective on the Iranian proxies and their long walk through Iraq’s institutions. The Shia party nominally took a beating in the 2021 election to the anti-Tehran Moqtada al-Sadr. However, the Iranian aligned judiciary intervened, ruling that rather than the historical simple majority standard, the Sadrists needed a two-thirds majority to form a government, and barring his junior coalition partner, the Kurdistan Democratic Party's nominee from the Presidency (which would mark the completion of a formed coalition). Within a year Sadr and most of his faction stepped down, leaving no bloc to oppose the Iranian aligned Coordination Framework parties. They nominated the pliant Al-Sudani to prime minister, ensuring that Iranian-friendly faces have dominated the cabinet, and stretching Iranian influence throughout “The Iraqi National Intelligence Service, Baghdad airport, anticorruption bodies, and customs posts…Iraq’s media regulator, the Communications and Media Commission”. Critics accuse them of attempting to replicate an IRGC style of political patronage via welfare, state backed jobs, and by contracting out state assets controlled by the shia paramilitaries.
Libya
The disparate factions in Libya have said they’ve finally hammered out an agreement for how to proceed with their 2021 election, which has been indefinitely delayed, and the UN has offered to help.
Myanmar
Myanmar, still riven with ethnic secessionist groups, is starting to catch the ire of its neighbors. Borders between Myanmar and the neighboring Indian state of Manipur have historically been open, but ethnic violence is starting to spill over into Manipur itself. Thailand also cut off electricity to two Chinese backed, Karen militia-managed casinos over the border in Myanmar that they accuse of “being centres where people from other nations are tricked into taking jobs and then put into virtual captivity and forced to work in call centres conducting internet scams”. Last month a humanitarian envoy from ASEAN was attacked by the militias as well, rocketing up Myanmar on ASEAN’s list of regional priorities.
Soriek
11mo ago
What's the appeal in Lord of the Rings?
I've recently been press ganged by my friends into joining a Lord of the Rings book club and it's one of the more significant Ls I've taken in a long time. We've finished the Hobbit and the Fellowship of the Rings and I'm actually not sure I've ever read fiction this boring. Gargantuan amounts of the plot are just them wandering through the woods. The characterization is borderline nonexistent and the dialogue is so stilted that I have trouble keeping the characters apart - why are there even two characters for Mary and Pippin when as far as I can tell they're the same character? Every page feels like a slog, the only decent part is Tolkien has nice descriptions of scenery.
I'm not trying to be a dick though, I want to enjoy these books, everyone tells me they're great. What am I missing? What should I be looking for / trying to get out of them?
Why isn’t anarchism talked about more?
Around the turn of the previous century anarchism probably seemed like the threat to established society. The late nineteenth-early twentieth century saw an enormous amount of intellectual output in anarchist philosophy, producing such famous-to-this-day anarchist thinkers and political scientists as Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and James Guillaume. To many it seemed like just as viable a revolutionary philosophy as socialism, and played major roles in radical, secessionist movements like the Catalan independence fighters and the Paris Commune.
And the violence that emerged from this movement was breathtaking. Anarchists pursued “propaganda of the deed,” or expressing their philosophy through acts of violence. Bombings became standard fare across the western world, claiming scores of victims - up until the 1990s World Trade bombing, the anarchist bombing of Wall Street in 1920 was the bloodiest act of terrorism in the US. The Palmer Raids, often focused on for their anti-socialist agenda, were in just as large part about expelling anarchists following the Galleanist bombing campaigns.
But this was far bigger than just the US - anarchist assassins killed no less than nine (nine!) heads of state across the western world! It happened to William Mckinley of the US, Czar Alexander II of Russia, Empress Elizabeth of Austria, President Sadi Carnot of France, Prime Minister Del Castillo of Spain, Prime Minister Iradier, also of Spain, King Umberto I of Italy, King George of Greece, and King Charles of Portugal. That is crazy. It was so bad that the turn of the century is sometimes called “the golden age of assassination”. There were even international conferences of the major powers in Rome and St Petersburg to form coalitions to fight against international anarchism.
My broad theory of the era is this: prior to the industrial revolution many more people were still functionally “self-employed,” working on their own farm, or as an artisan, or managing their store. Throughout the nineteenth century the modern divisions of capitalists and wage laborers, who would live and die working for someone else, really grew and solidified over time. This brought growth, but I think it was likely also a wrenching, unpleasant experience for most people, and a lot of radical movements since have been a form of response to that sense that something about modern society is deeply unnatural.
Even for countries with recent traditions of serfdom, like Russia and Austria, the changes in day-to-day life everywhere from industrialization were vast. The immense, impersonal scale of capitalism, the constant supervision, workers used to setting their own schedules and working at their own pace finding strict schedules thrust upon them, a shift so significant it came in many places with the literal synchronization of standardized time. At the extremes, capitalist modernity created institutions like company towns, where workers with no rights labored from dawn till dusk under the constant watchful eye of the manager, lived in apartments owned by the corporation, purchased all their goods and food from stores owned by the corporation, and walked on streets patrolled by private law enforcement hired for the corporation to enforce rules set by the corporation. You were stripped of all autonomy and ownership and forced to labor in brutal conditions every day; the slightest agitation could be met with brutal repression and you could at any moment be turned out on the streets because you didn’t even own your home, you lived there at the corporation’s behest.
Anarchism seems to be the first way that sort of visceral reaction to these conditions manifested at large scale, and it's understandable in an era when people found themselves in significantly more servile, managed conditions, that those radicalized would rebel against authority itself. Galleani himself, for instance, was radicalized following the mass arrests in Patterson of factory workers striking for an eight hour work day. He went on to create one of the most dangerous anarchist terrorist groups in America. It's a simple response - if society is rotten then tear it down.
But nowadays almost no one other than teenagers seriously pushes anarchism. Yet little more than a century ago scarcely a year would go by without a head of state being murdered by an anarchist. Where did what once seemed like a global threat just disappear to? Did socialism just suck away anarchism’s energy by speaking to the same people disaffected by capitalism but offering a more compelling vision of society? Or was it wrong to consider it anything more than a sensational but somewhat short lived trend, a little like the way the western world speaks less and less about Islamist terrorism?
Consolidated Markets in Healthcare
In the old place we talked about doing regular analysis of emerging legislation / happenings on the Hill, so this piece is in that spirit. Yesterday the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee had a hearing on “Why Health Care is Unaffordable: Anticompetitive and Consolidated Markets.” This isn’t a major hearing or anything, it’s just a topic I’m interested in so I thought I’d share it here.
If you’ve never watched Congressional hearings I actually recommend it. When I started I was surprised how generally intelligent and reasonable most Congressmen appear, even the ones who act like clowns on social media, how much they tend to ask the kind of questions you would want them to ask, how often Republicans and Democrats actually agree. The panelists are listed below, hyper linked with their written testimonies. Q and A is in the video.
Dr. Barak Richman, Professor, Duke Law School
The Honorable Glen Mulready, Commissioner, Oklahoma Insurance Department
Mr. Joe Moose, Owner, Moose Pharmacy
Mr. Frederick Isasi, Executive Director, Families USA
Dr. Benjamin N. Rome, M.D., M.P.H., Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School
It probably needs no introduction how borked the US healthcare system is, but a few stats from the hearing: according to the Kaiser Foundation 30% of Americans say they didn’t pick up pharmaceuticals because of cost, almost half of all Americans must forego broader medical care due to cost, and over 40% of Americans live with medical debt. Other countries often pay half or less of what we do.
Panelists attribute this to anti-competitive practices coming from consolidation in three interconnected markets: pharmacy benefit managers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and hospitals.
PBMs
Pharmacy Benefit Managers, or PBMs, are middlemen companies that represent a bunch of healthcare customers collectively in negotiations with pharmaceutical companies. On net PBMs are believed to decrease drugs costs, but there is no way for PBM customers to see what prices were negotiated, and frequently rebates aren't passed onto consumers. In Ohio for instance PBMs passed on the full difference of what they paid pharmacies to Medicaid managed plans, and in Delaware PBMs overcharged the State by $24.5 million. The latter practice is called “spread pricing” and has become increasingly common as PBMs buy up pharmacies themselves.
Currently three PBMs - CVS Health, Cigna, and United Health Group - control 80% of the market, with zero pay transparency.
Pharmaceutical Companies:
Often drug prices are pretty arbitrary themselves because brand name drugs make up 75-80% of costs, and patenting laws allow pharma companies to raise those prices as high as the market can bear. One panelist cites that in 2015 over $40 million was spent on drugs that big pharma held excessive patents on, and that the top 12 drugs have over 120 patents for 38 extra years of exclusivity.
Clearly some degree of patent protection is reasonable, but I’m not sure why i.e. the 12 year biologic patent period Trump created offered anything better than the previous 8 year period. Also, see one of my favorite old Scott posts, “Busiprone Shortage in Healthcaristan,” for stories of Sanofi protecting nominally off-patent Insulin by issuing 74 patents for the biological processes to create insulin - not to use these processes themselves but just to prevent any competitor from ever using them.
The Inflation Reduction Act changed Medicare’s ability to negotiate prices somewhat, but pharma companies still get their market exclusivity and even then Medicare can only negotiate the 20 highest cost drugs. Giving Medicare greater ability to directly negotiate prices would likely help quite a bit; this is the model practiced in much of the world and by the US Veterans Administration, which also pays about half of what everyone else does.
For context though, pharmaceutical prices are, shockingly, only about 8.9% of healthcare spending...
Hospitals
...with physicians and hospitals making up over 50%. The hospital panelist thought it was funny the PBM folks were complaining about there only being three major market players. Most hospitals don’t even have one competitor!
According to Representative Claudia Tenny from New York, from 1983 to 2014 the percentage of physicians practicing alone has fallen by half, while the rate of physicians joining practices of 25 or more people has quadrupled. Often when hospitals acquire these physicians they charge high facility fees for seeing doctors “off-campus,” even though the services are the same. The very fact that hospitals can get away with doing this only further encourages consolidation, because they know they can mark up prices for any new acquisitions. Representative Kevin Hern from Oklahoma proposed in the hearing a bill that would supposedly combat this practice.
Hospitals typically make physicians sign non-competitive clauses, meaning they can’t leave and work for a competitor, even in areas as large as the entire state. From 2007-2014 hospital prices increased twice as fast as inpatient physician’ salaries and four times faster than outpatient physician’ salaries.
Often hospitals also lobby State Legislatures for monopolist laws. Nineteen state have Certificate of Public Advantage laws allowing hospitals to evade anti-trust laws and merge in already-concentrated markets. Another Thirty-five states (and DC) have Certificate of Need Laws forcing providers to obtain regulatory permission before they “offer new services, expand facilities, or invest in technology”. These laws act as huge regulatory barriers to entry for small competitors trying to challenge major hospital systems, and the DOJ and FTC have long condemned them for their anticompetitive nature.
Interested to hear people’s thoughts and would love if we could get a regular thing going.
How much did America contribute to decolonization?
Over the years @2rafa and i have had a debate a few times about whether or not America drove decolonization - in theory due to its liberal, anticolonial ideological founding and sympathies. Good points have been made on both sides but I realized we can actually just go and check. This is an attempt to give a quick, surface level look at decolonization globally and see what, if any, role the US might have played. I’ve started and stopped this several times because there’s always more detail but eventually it will just be too long to read. Assuredly I’m going to miss important things because I’m not an expert on most of these places, so let me know if I do and I’ll edit it in.
(P.S. Transnational Thursdays will now be in their own thread instead of the Culture War thread.)
The British Empire
See @Tollund_Man4's comment for more details on America influence on Irish independence.
Asia
America certainly pushed Britain on India and President Roosevelt in particular was very dedicated to the idea of decolonization, going so far as to breach it to Stalin at the Yalta Conference. However, Roosevelt died without putting meaningful pressure on the issue and his successor Truman abandoned the issue. Indian and Pakistani independence ultimately happened without American intervention.
During the Malayan Emergency Britain engaged in 12 years of brutal counterinsurgency against the Malayan Communist Party’s battle for national independence. America did nothing to oppose Britain in this openly colonial endeavor and in fact provided them funding - ostensibly for development in Malaysia but much of the funds went to the conflict, and with open requests for items like “tear gas” it’s hard to believe the American decision makers were unclear on this. Britain abandoned Singapore after a period of defense budget cuts necessitated by the devaluation of the pound. America was not involved.
Sub Saharan Africa
Tanzania, Sudan, Uganda, the Gambia, Sierra Leone, British Somaliland, Zambia, Malawi, Botswana, Nigeria, and Ghana directly negotiated their independence with Britain. As far as I can tell America was not a concern for either party in any of these independence movements.
Zimbabwe became independent from Britain in 1965 and white minority rule was ended from elections in 1980 at the end of a fifteen year guerilla insurgency. There were Americans fighting for the white Rhodesian security forces but without the approval of the US government (though “There is evidence that the Departments of Justice and State tacitly encouraged Americans to volunteer for Rhodesia as part of efforts to prevent the country's collapse prior to a negotiated solution to the war”).
South Africa became independent from Britain peacefully in 1960 but white minority government continued to 1994. America supported South Africa throughout almost all of this period, long after it had become an international pariah state, because South Africa’s participation in the wars in Mozambique and Angola against Soviet proxy forces established them as a bulwark against communism in the region. Bilateral trade was actually at an all time high between our countries in the 80s under Reagan’s “constructive engagement,” and America was quite literally the last relevant country in the world to join sanctions in ’86. These sanctions didn’t do much to the South African economy anyway (most econ indicators actually modestly improved in the late 80s) in large part because the Reagan Admin only weakly enforced them. From our Government Accounting Office review of the sanctions:
The U.S. government does not have adequate tools to effectively enforce the provision. The State Department issued a list of South African government agencies and state-owned corporations that it designated as parastatals [state-owned enterprises] but did not identify the products produced. marketed, or exported by them. Therefore, Customs does not know which South African products could have come from parastatals . . . Customs also cannot target any audits of certificates to those of products in industries where known parastatal activity exists”
According to De Klerk at least, the Safrican leader who ended apartheid, he did it because the Soviet Union had fallen and there was no longer the risk of South Africa becoming a communist Soviet satellite.
The Middle East and North Africa
Britain pulled out of Libya voluntarily following the war, and left Egypt in stages following the 1919 and 1952 coups. Egypt is a little odd, the CIA was likely in communication with the Free Officers movement who led the coup and it’s definitely alleged that they supported the coup but as far as I can tell there’s nothing concrete, no record of weapons or money transfers even by the CIA whistleblower who claims to have led the communications. You won’t find a mention of allegations of American on the actual wiki page for the coup, for whatever that’s worth. Later, during the 1956 Suez Crisis British attempted to reassert itself over the Suez only to be slapped down by America. From Hitchcock’s “The Age of Eisenhower,” President Eisenhower’s motivations in intervention were threefold:
1: He was worried about Egypt and third party countries watching the incredibly unpopular conflict becoming Soviet allies.
2: He was worried about nuclear war. The USSR was desperate to rehabilitate their anti-imperialist credentials after crushing the Hungarian uprising the same week, and Premier Nikolai Bulganin threatened: “we are fully determined to crush the aggressors and restore peace in the east through the use of force”.
3: He was furious with Britain and France for having their diplomats lie to ours and took it personally as a huge breach of trust.
Sympathy for the colonized was nowhere on his list of concerns, nor was Egypt’s sovereignty genuinely at stake in the crisis. I don’t really know how to categorize Egypt but I think we might as well count it as the US spurring decolonization, because we seem to have been meddling around and did oppose the colonial powers, but for self-interested reasons rather than anti-colonial fervor.
Britain pulled out of Yemen following the protracted Aden Emergency, and disengaged from its remaining gulf protectorates after deciding the expense wasn’t worth it - especially after the pound crashed domestically. Britain withdrew postwar troops from the remainder of the Middle East only after nurturing and leaving pliant leaders in Iraq, Jordan, Iran, Bahrain, and Oman. Their remaining influence in the region was ended by coups in Iraq and Iran, the latter of which featured America famously helping Britain reassert itself when Mossadegh’s government threatened Britain quasi-colonial domination of the oil industry.
Caribbean
The British Caribbean possessions, Jamaica, Barbados, etc, achieved independence directly with the British government without American involvement.
The French Empire
Sub Saharan Africa
Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Niger, Madagascar, and the Republic of Congo achieved independence directly via negotiations with France. America was not involved nor did we oppose France’s attempts to keep its former territories in a quasi-colonial arrangement, or regularly coup their leaders.
Middle East & North Africa
France was forced out of the rest of the Middle East during the Levant Crisis, where they launched an airstrike on Damascus in an attempt to re-colonize the area. America was indeed happy to see them gone but did not play the role in forcing them out - Britain did, sending in troops as the intervention became a massacre and demanding that France back down, which they did reluctantly. France negotiated independence directly with Tunisia and Morocco and of course left Algeria in the Algerian War of Independence, which America did not participate in on either side.
Asia
America very famously sent aid, materiel, and military advisors to help France hold onto its colonial possessions of Vietnam, and then just took on the project ourselves when they didn’t have the grit to see it through. Cambodia and Laos achieved independence via direct negotiation with France.
Caribbean
America made no effort to help Haiti during its revolution, blockaded it, didn’t recognize it as a country till nearly forty years after even France itself had done so, and in the early twentieth century conquered Haiti ourselves and ruled it as a colony for nineteen years.
(Continued in next comment - plz comment there for simplicity's sake)
Is Education Spending Progressive?
This is mostly a specific data question. Brookings Institute reports that education spending is ever so slightly higher in poor districts than non-poor districts; this paper by two Stanford Professors seems to find the same thing; the Urban Institute (with one of the same authors from the Brookings report) seems to show that on the state level funding is frequently progressive. I’m not doing full justice here to these papers, which are more nuanced and actually argue that funding to poor districts is still frequently lacking. This makes sense to me - it stands to reason if you spend basically the same on rich students and poor students the former will still do better based on all their other advantages. But I’m more wondering about the empirical claim itself because the Economic Policy Institute finds the exact opposite results. They agree using national averages school spending is a little progressive, but find that when you break things up at the district level wealthier districts receive more funding.
The funny thing here is that they’re using the same data source as the other papers: the Department of Education’s Digest of Education Statistics / National Center for Education Statistics 2017–2018 Local Education Agency Finance Survey. But when EPI looks at it they find:
While state revenues are a significant portion of funding, they only modestly counter the large locally based inequities. And while federal funding, by far the smallest source of revenue, is being deployed as intended (to reduce inequities), it inevitably falls short of compensating for a system grounded in highly inequitable local revenues as its principal source of funding. As such, although states provide their highest-poverty districts with $1,550 more per student than to their lowest-poverty districts, and federal sources provide their highest-poverty districts with $2,080 more per student than to their lowest-poverty districts, states and the federal government jointly compensate for only about half of the revenue gap for high-poverty districts (which receive a per-student average of $6,330 less in property tax and other local revenues). That large gap in local funding leaves the highest-poverty districts still $2,710 short per student relative to the lowest-poverty districts, reflecting the 14.1% revenue gap shown in Figure C. Even though high-poverty districts get more in federal and state dollars, they get so much less in property taxes that it still puts them in the negative category overall.
And when the Stanford guys look at it they find:
Poor spending exceeds nonpoor spending in 56 percent of districts; 63 percent of the FRPL population attend schools in these districts. Black spending exceeds white spending in 71 percent of districts; 70 percent of black students attend schools in these districts. Hispanic spending exceeds white spending in 60 percent of districts; 61 percent of Hispanic students attend schools in these districts. Overall, larger districts (by enrollment) also tend to be those that spend more on disadvantaged students; therefore, more disadvantaged students are concentrated in districts with greater inequality.
What gives? Am I misunderstanding and they’re actually measuring different things that cause their results to be different?
Does our fiction say anything about our society?
(The way I've been encouraging myself to read fiction again is by convincing myself it's anthropology/history/a window into culture)
Tanner Greer once authored a piece called "On the Tolkienic Hero," arguing that while history is littered with heroes who had no distrust of power and who conciously sought out their quest, J.R.R. Tolkien popularized the notion of a hero as a character whose very goodness is that they don't want power, that they will only shoulder power as a temporary burden. Nowadays we see this trope everywhere in the most popular form of writing: Young Adult fiction, from Harry Potter to Hunger Games to Star Wars. In a piece in City Journal Greer explores the implications of this - what could a culture that produces these kind of myths tell us about our society?
Greer has also written at length in the past about how he feels that modern Americans have lost agency as the country moved from self employed, locally-governed settler communities towards our current era of vast corporations and vast bureaucracy. His thesis here is that we see this expressed in our fiction - the modern, powerless YA protaganist raging against the machine is symptomatic of a society where people feel themselves to be at the whims of distant and impersonal forces:
As unconscious illustrations of common beliefs about authority, fate, and morality, [French Fairy Tales] offered a rare window into the ancien regime as the common man experienced it. The fairy realm of the French peasant mirrored his lived reality. His was a vicious and empty moral order, where personal destiny depended on the arbitrary whims of the powerful...
like the fairy tales of old, [American] escapist yarns can escape only so far. Their imagery and plotting are irrevocably tied to our society...these fictional narratives share a set of attitudes and convictions about the nature of authority, power, and responsibility. They provide a window into the moral economy of the twenty-first century’s overmanaged meritocrats...
The defining feature of the YA fictional society: powerful, inscrutable authorities with a mysterious and obsessive interest in the protagonist. Sometimes the hidden hands of this hidden world are benign. More often, they do evil. But the intentions behind these spying eyes do not much matter. Be they vile or kind, they inevitably create the kind of protagonist about whom twenty-first century America loves to read: a young hero defined by her frustration with, or outright hostility toward, every system of authority that she encounters...
It is not just twenty-first-century teenagers who feel buffeted by forces beyond their control...one-third of Americans now find themselves employed by corporations made impersonal by their scale. The decisions that determine the daily rounds of the office drone are made in faraway boardrooms—rooms, one might say, “where adults discuss things out of earshot.” What decides the destiny of Western man? Credit scores he has only intermittent access to. Regulations he has not read. HR codes he had no part in writing...
The modern-day fairy tale is not at peace with HR. Our fairy realm’s preoccupation with the problems of the micromanaged life resonates. Its paranoia reflects a culture that has lost faith in its own ruling class. The YA novel’s adolescent attitude toward authority speaks to the experiences of the many millions shaken by their own impotence. The mania for dystopia is a literary sensation custom-made for the frustrations of our age.
Counterarguments:
1. Women's Liberation
In general when Greer talks about missing a past where people had more autonomy, he's really talking about men, and I think it's right to say that men are more likely to be disillusioned by modenity than women. The society that created these modern myths is one where women finally gained the right to have a voice, get a mortgage, start a business, etc, and Greer himself points out that most YA authors, protaganists, and readers are women. Should we see the portrayal of the teen girl protaganist finding empowerment against an oppressive society as just a story of the time, articulating a struggle many women went through in the last century? (Remember that even authors writing about young people are often from a previous generation and have lived through more cultural change).
Counterpoint: the female YA protaganists don't seem that different from the males in terms of their position in society. This might be just because more male protaganists are written by women and so also embody themes that women have lived through. On the other hand, compare modern "Tolkienic" women protaganists to heroines written by women authors in a different age, like Scarlett O'Hara of Gone With the Wind, Elizabeth Bennet of Pride and Prejudice, Anne Shirley of Anne of Green Gables. All of these characters to me feel much more self-confident in their rank or purpose. Also, their much more sexist and heirarchical societies are not portrayed as particularly dystopian or oppressive, even with those books do grapple with themes of patriarchy.
2. Fiction written by commoners rather than elites
For a long time most great literature was created by a privledged elite class - of course they weren't going to portray their society as oppressive, they were the ones doing the oppressing! Elizabeth Bennet and Scarlett O'hara are literally from wealthy landowner families, of course they don't question their (relative) empowerment. Nowadays anyone can take a stab at writing fiction, so of course you're going to have more perspectives from people who don't feel particularly powerful and whose relation to society has been more subservient.
Counterpoint: Not all empowered female protaganists from that era were from wealthy backgrounds - Jane Eyre and Anne Shirley were orphans. Counter-counterpoint - their authors kinda were, Lucy Maud Montgomery was from a political elite family in Canada and Charlotte Brontë was at least relatively privledged, if not a giga-elite, so maybe their perspectives still don't incorporate the common person on the street.
3. ? Insert yours
Despite the counterpoints I listed to my own arguments, I think the answer is likely a combination of all of the above - late stage capitalism and advanced bureaucracy means we are now governed by vast, distant forces, but also fiction is increasingly created by women and normal people whose historical experience of being treated like second class citizens are going to bleed into the art we create.
Soriek
9mo ago
Updates on Oil and Gas
In the old place I started a conversation about rising oil and gas prices. Several people responded at the time that it was due to policy, like Biden cancelling the keystone pipeline and pressuring the adoption of green technologies. The theory was that the Biden Administration wanted to keep prices high to effect a transition to green technology. At the time I argued that it seemed very unlikely that Biden wanted gas prices high, and that these regulatory factors were an insufficient explanation for price spikes/production gluts: Obama cancelled offshore drilling and pushed green tech too and yet oil production doubled under him. @Iconochasm, who I think is no longer with us, made a prediction that oil would fall significantly anyway because fossil fuel companies would react to Biden’s opposition.
As a follow up on that prediction, in the year since this conversation oil production in the US has shot up and looks on pace to soon reach its previous heights before the Covid collapse, with prices falling correspondingly. Now I see articles like “U.S. Crude Oil Production Rebounds In January: EIA”, “America is going through an oil boom — and this time it's different”, and “U.S. Crude Oil Output Expected to Hit New Record Highs in 2023”:
U.S. crude oil production is expected to average 12.4 million barrels per day in 2023, surpassing the previous record of 12.3 million barrels per day in 2019. These forecasts, offered by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, include increased production in the Permian region and the Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico.[1]
The U.S. is on track to recover all the decreases in production that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic, when demand for oil collapsed along with its price. The low price of oil caused energy companies to slow production and close their least profitable wells, resulting in an 8% drop in oil production for 2020, the highest annual decrease on record. Following the easing of travel restrictions and a rebound of global demand, U.S. oil output is close to surpassing pre-pandemic levels…
The bulk of the growth in U.S. oil production has come from the Permian region, which spans parts of Texas and New Mexico and accounts for about 40% of U.S. oil output and currently produces 5.7 million barrels per day. The other major source of growth is the Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico, where several large projects have come online in the past few years, producing 1.8 million barrels per day.
In addition to boosting domestic production, the U.S. is expanding its access to new oil resources in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. In March 2023, the Biden administration approved a controversial drilling project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, known as Willow. The project, initiated under former President Trump and faced legal challenges from environmental groups, is expected to produce up to 160,000 barrels per day of oil at its peak and generate $10 billion in revenue for the federal government over 30 years.
A few weeks later, the Biden administration announced plans to hold an auction for a lease sale of more than 73 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico, which could yield up to 1.1 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over the project’s lifetime
It’s gotten so pronounced that environmentalist groups have even started critiquing the Biden Administration (1, 2, 3) for surpassing even Trump in their zeal for fossil fuels:
Federal data show the Biden administration approved 6,430 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years, outpacing the Trump administration’s 6,172 drilling-permit approvals in its first two years…
Nearly 4,000 of the Biden permits are on public lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s New Mexico office, followed by 1,223 drilling permits in Wyoming, and several hundred each in Utah, Colorado, California, Montana and North Dakota.
Will the outlook stay rosy? I have no idea. As I argued in previous posts I think regulatory decisions are probably less impactful than the broader global markets, and investments in new productive capacity remains low for that exact reason. So a lot of the future probably hinges on stuff like the Ukraine War and the decisions made by OPEC. Still, coupled with the fact that Biden tapped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to depress prices, I think this largely confirms that Biden was certainly not driven by a desire to crush oil production and keep prices high for Americans. Like most Presidents, he wants voters to be happy with him.
Ecuador
New President Daniel Noboa has started things off with a huge focus on law and order in response to the rise of organized crime in recent years (“The murder rate quadrupled from 2018 to 2022, while last year became the most violent yet with 7,500 homicides in the country of about 18 million people.”) . He has begun by announcing a referendum on new policies dealing with crime:
The referendum would seek approval from voters on lengthening prison sentences for serious crimes like homicide and arms trafficking, among others, as well for Ecuador's military to eradicate international criminal groups operating in the country, according to Noboa's letter to the court.
Noboa has also now announced the construction of two new maximum security prisons, with a not-exactly subtle nod to Bukele’s policies over in El Salvador:
He said the buildings would be exactly the same as a prison built by El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, who has led a controversial crackdown on gangs in his Central American country.
"The prisons will allow for the division, proper isolation of people," said the 36-year-old Noboa, who took office in November, speaking in a radio interview.
"For all the Bukele lovers, it is an identical prison," to those he has built, added Noboa.
To make even more room, Noboa says they will also deport over a thousand foreigners in prison back to the surrounding countries they came from (no word on those receiving countries feel about it). By design the new prisons will be on the coast, far away from the heart of the worst of the violence, in hopes it will make it harder for gangs to liberate their members.
Speaking of which, the leader of the notorious Los Choneros cartel was just liberated from prison by his fellow gang members. People are freaking out, probably understandably, and Noboa has declared a 60 day state of emergency for the leader to be found. Having only just come out of a prolonged state of emergency under Noboa’s predecessor Lasso, apparently it’s a state Ecuadorians must get used to. Given that the previous state of emergency gave the military powers of internal law enforcement, I guess it makes the whole referendum a little redundant.
The cartels have responded in kind with major prison uprisings holding over 130 prison staff hostage and ghastly footage of them breaking into a news broadcasting station and holding the staff hostage on live TV. President Noboa has now declared they are at war with the cartels and have detained hundreds of alleged gang members. It's been a really crazy few days.
Soriek
2mo ago
Iraq
Well, we’ve all been following Iranian militias firing on American servicemen and vice versa in Iraq. Now everyone is getting in on the fun. Iran has launched airstrikes on Iraq and Syria The situation has strangely reversed a bit with Iran now retaliating against the ISIS terrorist attack that killed over a hundred of their civilians by launching airstrikes: “at what it claimed were Israeli “spy headquarters” near the U.S. Consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, and at targets linked to the extremist group Islamic State in northern Syria.” The latter target of course being in retaliation for the ISIS -claimed terrorist attack that killed over a hundred Iranian civilians.
Turkey decided to get into the action too by…also bombing Iraq and Syria, though they’re strafing for Kurdish militias in retaliation for the Kurdish PKK attack on a Turkish base last month. Iraq is understandably not thrilled about any of this (how does Syria feel? Who’s to say?), recalling their ambassador from Iran and calling their attacks an infringement upon Iraqi sovereignty. Presumably they’re not thrilled with Turkey either but they never had any kind of working relationship before (this is not Turkey’s first random attacks into Iraqi soil).
Basically all the cool kids are launching attacks in Iraq, a country that is really only marginally connected to the actual Israeli-Palestinian war by virtue of the fact that the different powers all have some degree of presence here as well. Rough hand to draw.
International Updates
I think this forum often shines when people talk about foreign affairs or give updates from their own countries, so - in the same spirit as calling for regular coverage and analysis of the Hill - I’d like to try and start a tradition of brief weekly updates on big happenings from around the world. I’m not an expert on most places and will definitely not be able to get everything. People should feel free to spin off of anything they find interesting, to add onto this with coverage of other places that were missed, or to post their own. Unintentionally, this week’s theme is elections and struggles for national power.
Ecuador
In a process with shades of Peru’s ongoing crisis, Ecuador’s President Guillermo Lasso recently dissolved the National Assembly following their failed attempt to impeach him for (allegedly) mishandling a deal involving the state oil company. This means Lasso is now ruling by decree. Difference being, this seems to be actually allowed under the Ecuadorian constitution; it’s currently being challenged in court but it doesn’t seem like anyone thinks it will be successful. He can govern like this for up to six months, but yesterday announced there will be an election in August, which he is allowed to run in (though he hasn’t announced if he will). In the meantime, he seems to be making the most of his interim by cutting taxes and creating special economic zones to attract foreign investment.
Chile
Right wing parties won a majority in the legislative assembly in Sunday's election, largely due to a deteriorating economy, significant internal instability, and President Gabriel Boric’s failure to make headway on campaign commitments. You probably remember the kerfuffle last year about reforming Chile’s constitution. The current constitution is inherited from the Pinochet dictatorship and there’s large agreement (80%) it should be replaced, but little in the way of common vision for what should replace it. Last year President Boric attempted to pass a more left wing constitution with some built in idpol elements like gender equality and greater indigenous rights, but it failed to pass a referendum, with 62% in opposition. The incoming current right wing coalition is actually led by Boric’s opposition candidate from the last election, Antonio Kast, and they will now have their own shot to pass a new constitution.
Turkey
The Turkish election is scheduled this Sunday for the run off between Erdogan and opposition candidate Kemal Kilicdaroglu. The matchup is a little reminiscent of Hungary, in that six opposition parties have teamed together in a longshot, big-tent coalition to unseat an increasingly entrenched strongman, and also in that they are likely to fail. Despite sky high inflation and the recent tragic earthquakes, Erdogan is favored to win, which would continue his streak in power from 2003. BBC reports that Kilicdaroglu is in a bit of a political pinch in that he needs to court both nationalist and Kurdish parties, which have some incompatible interests (ie, the former wants a harder crackdown on perceived or real Kurdish militantism). Even if he wins the presidency, Erdogan’s AKP and allied MHP have a parliamentary majority, so there’s probably not a ton a new president can change.
El Salvador
In a similar vein, El Salvadoran civil society groups have also formed a big tent coalition with four right- and left-wing opposition parties, including President Bukele's former party FMLN, to mount a unified attempt to unseat the increasingly autocratic leader in next year's election.
Sudan
The US and Saudi Arabia recently negotiated a seven day ceasefire between the Army and the RSF paramilitary in Sudan. Ideally, the ceasefire should give a little time to distribute humanitarian aid, though reportedly bombings have continued in the capital of Khartoum and the nearby cities of Omdurman and Bahri. Over a million people have been displaced so far, with the Red Cross warning it will be incredibly hard to house and provide for the 80,000+ refugees in Chad after the rainy season begins.
Thailand
Thailand’s election on the 14th has been covered as a major upset, with junta-backed Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha only receiving 7% of the vote, and voters overwhelmingly trending towards the anti-monarhcical and anti-military opposition parties, Move Forward and to a lesser extent Pheu Thai. There is a limited extent to how much this matters because since the military coup in 2014 the armed services control one third of the seats in parliament, unelected, and any opposition faces a steep uphill battle to get the 376 votes needed to unseat the PM. Even if they did surmount this threshold, the military can just do another coup whenever; “Thailand has averaged one coup every seven years since 1932 . . . nine years have passed since the last one, so a coup is now overdue.” Still, it speaks to significant discontent with the monarchy-military rule (the previous king was fairly popular, his 2016 successor Vajiralongkorn - say that five times fast - much less so, and the “lèse majesté laws” punishing any criticisms of him have become a sore point).
Iran
Ayatollah Khamenei is 84 and has been battling illness off and on for the past few years, so soon his succession will be an unavoidable issue. Foreign Affairs reports that while the process for this is a well established vote by the “Assembly of Experts,” there is significant disagreement within the assembly and the different elite factions they represent, with interlocking alliances and power politics far more complicated than Iran’s broader Assembly (over 120 elite “parties” vs basically 2 relevant national parties: the moderates and conservatives). If the chaos of the last transition from Iran’s foundational leader is any guide, the upcoming one will be extremely fraught as well, which is a recipe for instability when coupled with Iran’s significant public discontent from the government’s ruthless suppression of the last year of protests.
Soriek
6mo ago
With the reports of Egypt notifying Israel in advance of an impending attack, people here and elsewhere have wondered if Bibi maybe let the attack slip through on purpose to consolidate power. Overnight he went from dealing with protests against his judicial reforms and the draft to having those problems disappear and securing the full backing of a broad unity government with his former opposition.
But Jerusalem Post just released a pretty damning poll:
An overwhelming majority of 86% of respondents, including 79% of coalition supporters, said the surprise attack from Gaza is a failure of the country's leadership...
Furthermore, almost all of the respondents (94%) believe the government has responsibility for the lack of security preparedness that led to the assault on the South, with over 75% saying the government holds most of the responsibility...
A slim majority of 56% said Netanyahu must resign at the end of the war, with 28% of coalition voters agreeing with this view.
In addition, 52% of respondents also expect Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to resign.
In addition, most respondents also noted that they do not trust the government to lead the war on Gaza, though the poll was held prior to former defense minister Benny Gantz joining an emergency unity government on Wednesday evening.
Is there any way for Bibi to hold onto power? If not, what might the future look like?
Transnational Thursdays 4
Thanks to @ActuallyATleilaxuGhola for the name. As before, all folks are encouraged to add to any of these or to add coverage of any countries they’re interested in, the more the merrier.
Argentina
Despite recent polls showing the libertarian Javier Millei in a three way tie with mainstream parties for the presidential election, 60% of voters oppose his proposal of dollarization and no candidate of his scored above 15% in the provincial elections. Juntos por el Cambio, the Center Right opposition party, scored big in the long time Peronist stronghold of San Luis and otherwise the mainstream parties consolidated their holds on the provinces they already governed. They are supposed to formally announce coalitions this morning so I may edit that in later.
The government has announced another debt swap as part of their ongoing effort to restructure debt obligations. Inflation continues to climb at breakneck speeds from 100% a few weeks ago to 149% this week.
Colombia
President Gustavo Petro has successfully negotiated a six month cease fire with the rebel group ELN*, starting in August. This is a major victory for internal stability and fulfills one of Petro’s central campaign promises. Unfortunately he doesn’t have much time to celebrate as the conservative Attorney General continues his investigations into corruption in the Petro’s Administration, this time looking into alleged illegal campaign financing.
- A previous edition of these said Petro was formerly part of ELN, that was my mistake; he was a member of M19
Guatemala
Guatemala’s high profile persecution of a journalist critical of the regime has ended in a widely criticized sentence of six years. Elections are Sunday the 25th (though they will likely go to a runoff in August). After banning the three most popular anti-establishment candidates, the remaining candidates are all different flavors of establishment, frequently literally the children of previous Presidents. Most noticeable is Zury Ríos, daughter of former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt, famous for his (US backed) genocide of the indigenous Mayans. Ríos is a controversial figure for her defense of her father, and has run twice before and never finished better than third. However, she is currently the front runner (following Carlos Pineda being banned), running on a campaign of imitating Salvadoran President Bukele’s security approach for the gangs in Guatemala. She is trailed by Sandra Torres of the Social-Democrat party, former First Lady and runner up in the previous two elections, possibly headed for a third.
Turkey
JP Morgan estimates that Erdogan will kick off his new term by finally raising interest rates possibly up 25%. They predict a recession in the short term, but hopefully the pain needn’t be long if they can restore the confidence of international investors. Foreign Policy expects his new term to be defined by a continually assertive foreign policy, especially as a broker in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and now the Balkans as well. NATO continues to largely be at Turkey’s whims with regards to Sweden’s accession.
Iran
Three months after the Saudi-Iran Peace Accords, Iran has yet to deescalate on any front. The war in Yemen rages on, Iranians have repeatedly targeted Americans in Syria, interfered with sea trade (1,2), and continued to direct their proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine to shell Israel. The Biden Administration, long having given up on resurrecting a nuclear deal and unwilling to go full force against Iran, has listed towards steady de-escalation, foregoing retaliation against Iran for its attacks or build up of uranium reserves, and allowing it to skirt some sanctions and access previously frozen funds.
India
45,000 people have been evacuated from India’s Gujarat State (and 60,000 from neighboring Pakistan’s Sindh Province) in anticipation of Thursday’s Biparjoy Cyclone. Ethnic violence in BJP dominated Manipur State has reached highly serious levels: “More than 130 people have died in the state, and another 60,000 displaced from their homes. People have ransacked 4,573 weapons from police armories and destroyed 250 churches. So grave is the situation that many residents have chosen to escape to neighboring Myanmar, where the ruling military junta is conducting aerial bombing campaigns against its own citizens.” @self_made_human any details to add?
Eritrea
Eritrea is pretty much never in the news because of its extreme political isolation under the thirty year dictatorship of Isiais Afwerki, who looks like your friendly neighbor over the fence but who actually turned Eritrea into one of the least free countries in the world, frequently coming in dead last for freedom of press and recently hitting a three way tie with North Korea and Mauritania for prevalence of slavery. However, after sixteen years of absence, Eritrea has decided to rejoin the East African regional block, Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. This will restore trade ties as well as security collaboration channels.
Sudan
The latest 24 hour ceasefire ended and violence began again immediately, with fighting increasingly growing more in the RSF home base of Darfur. “More than 1.6 million people to leave their homes for safer areas inside Sudan, according to the International Organization for Migration. About 530,000 others fled to the neighboring countries of Egypt, South Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, the Central African Republic, and Libya.”
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Progressive new leader Bola Tinubu officially took the Presidency two weeks ago and started things off with a bang by ending a fuel subsidy that strained Nigeria’s finances. This caused fuel prices to immediately spike, sending off significant unrest throughout the country. Bloomberg reports that an internal government committee has recommended Nigeria continue to sell off its state assets in oil, killing two birds with one stone by raising finances and boosting efficiency in the petroleum sector, thus ideally helping to fulfill Tinubu’s ambitious campaign pledge to triple oil production.
Tinubu has also suspended and has now arrested the head of the Central Bank Godwin Emefiele. The charges are vague and based around economic mismanagement, specifically around a controversial policy that caused a currency shortage. However, it’s worth noting Emefiele was Tinubu’s opponent in his party’s primary so is something of a political rival.
Jihadist attacks have spiked recently as well, which does not bode well for Tinubu’s campaign promise to restore peace. However, the new National Assembly has now been sworn in with Tinubu’s All Progressives Congress party holding majorities in both chambers, so he can begin to appoint a cabinet and make use of his mandate to address the twin maladies of the economy and terrorism.
I believe this would also be the first time in US history the House will have removed a Speaker with a motion to vacate.
I was looking it up and I guess this is only the third time a motion to vacate ever happened in history. The last time was kind of similar to this, the right flank, led by Mark Meadows, rebelling against John Boehner in 2015. It was unsuccessful but he ended up resigning anyway.
The first time was in 1910 and the Speaker filed a Motion to Vacate against himself. Basically he was daring unruly representatives to challenge him publicly, and ultimately they fell in line. Couldn't be farther from our present situation.
Has the Beinoff Homelessness and Housing Initiative Report been discussed yet here? You can read the report here, an executive summary here, and a transcript of the report being discussed on the Ezra Klein Show here.
Released in June, it’s a statewide study on homelessness in California, the largest of its kind in some thirty years. It’s built on “nearly 3,200 participants, selected intentionally to provide a representative sample, and weighted data to provide statewide estimates. To augment survey responses, we recruited 365 participants to participate in in-depth interviews”. No question as to the state of focus: California is just over a tenth of the American population but nearly a third of its homeless population and nearly half of the unsheltered homeless population.
Other takeaways are that contra claims that homeless populations are traveling to California for warm weather or social services, 90% of interviewed participants said they were from California (and 75% from the same county they were homeless in), and backed it up with various details about their hometowns and whatnot. This also aligns with the finding that only about a third of the homeless even sought out government services, suggesting that most people are not taking advantage of whatever unique government services for the homeless California offers (which aren't good anyway). This overall makes some common sense imo - if you’re so broke you don’t have somewhere to live then your options for travel are likely limited as well.
The paper is interesting as a resource in its own right, but I think it’s most useful combined with the claims made in a book referenced in the Ezra Klein discussion of the report: “Homelessness is a Housing Problem.”
The piece argues that housing costs are the primary driving factor behind homelessness. For those who claim that homelessness is mostly a reflection of insanity and addiction, researchers point out that those things are frequently worse in other states with less severe homeless problems (correlations available in the hyperlink).
For instance, West Virginia has worse poverty, mental health, and substance abuse, but has a homeless problem vastly less bad than California's (0.09% vs 0.4%). The only thing California performs worse than West Virginia on is, predictably, housing costs. Or why does San Francisco, with a poverty rate of 11.4%, have such a worse homelessness problem (0.95%) than much poorer cities like Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New Orleans, all of which have poverty rates more than twice as high around 23% and homelessness rates around only 0.27%? The clearest answer is the most straightforward: San Francisco is simply twice as expensive to live in (a studio apartment in SF is little over $2k vs a little over 1k for the other three cities). This also lines up with the survey responses, with 89% of respondents saying housing costs were a barrier to them finding housing.
This doesn’t necessarily mean those mental health and addiction aren’t highly important here are as well, but that there may be a demographic of fairly low functioning people who are able to take care of themselves, just barely, at low costs, but are simply unable to under heavier financial burdens. Jerusalem Demsas compares this to a game of musical chairs: as you take away chairs one by one steadily the slower and weaker kids will find themselves without a place to sit. But if you don’t have enough chairs / are going through a severe housing shortage, of course you’re gonna have a worse chairlessness problem then elsewhere, even if their kids are slower and weaker.
And once you’re out, it can be very hard to get back on your feet. Your credit history is gonna be terrible, as is your appearance. Maybe you live in your car for a while but then it gets impounded because you have nowhere legal to park it and can’t pay for the tickets. Then you’ve lost your shelter as well as your ability to go to a job. From there you’re really in the streets, which is scary - some people may take uppers due to fear of being asleep in public where people can hurt you or steal from you, and thus pick up addictions. Things spiral very fast from bad to worse.
Taken together, these suggest early intervention and a clear policy prescription to build more housing and do what can be done to lower costs - not because every disheveled person on the street is a fresh-faced suburban homeowner waiting to happen, but specifically the opposite - that every poor or unstable person living on the cusp of not being able to afford where they stay bears the risk that it’ll be much harder for them to bounce back from a fall than to sustain where they are.
Interested to hear what other people thought.
More options
Context Copy link