PyotrVerkhovensky
No bio...
User ID: 2154
PyotrVerkhovensky
27d ago
Bryan Caplan is a name I've heard off and on in rationalist adjacent spaces and with Scott's recent review of one of Caplan’s books, I decided to actually take a look at his blog.
I was very surprised to see that he is an anarcho-capitalist: something that is very much unexpected in an academic economist. He acknowledges this in his blog, where he bemoans the left-wing focus on market failures rather than on market achievement. I probably agree with him on 90-95% of his positions, though I would have a different relative rank in the importance of those positions.
Of course, this being the internet, I won't spend any time on our many agreements but will instead focus on what I perceive to be his biggest shortcoming. Despite his expertise in a social science, he seems to think of society in abstractions: certainly a requirement for good economic modeling, but one that should always be grounded in reality. While possibly tongue in cheek, his statement that "it is humanity, not my arguments, that is flawed" does seem to reflect his mentality.
Exhibit A: Immigration and UAE
Caplan extols the virtues of the UAE, calling their mass-immigration a model for Western nations. And indeed, millions of Indians and billions of oil dollars have created a gleaming technical paradise. But as Caplan notes, UAE "immigration" is not the same as Western immigration. Only native Arabs have citizenship and enjoy the (extensive) welfare that oil money can afford.
The UAE understands that you can have mass immigration or a welfare state, but you cannot have both. They also are not squeamish about transactional relationships with imported labor, which makes the UAE's approach a complete non-starter in the West. No Western nation could import hundreds of millions of (mostly brown) labor, pay them "market wages", and refuse to provide citizenship and a social safety net. Even hard-core anarcho-libertarians would find the parallels with slavery uncomfortable.
The irony is that while the UAE does not have the human capital in either its native or foreign population as most Western countries, the West wastes its superior human capital on regulations, bureaucracy, and virtue signaling while the UAE just builds. Perhaps it is not "humanity" that is flawed, but just Western elites.
Regardless, the UAE's path is not sustainable. The native elite live off natural resources and imported labor rather than their own ingenuity and effort. There is no improvement in human capital, only a descent (slowed perhaps by the prohibitions of Islam) into hedonism. Copying their approach will neuter the unique ambition of the American spirit and accelerate our destruction.
Exhibit B: Immigration and Culture
Caplan implicitly downplays the negative aspect of migration on culture and social cohesion. Most immigrants will look, smell, act, and often vote differently than the "native" population. At scale, assimilation simply won't happen. Even with current immigration in the US there are sufficient numbers of Indians and Chinese to create clannish sub-cultures within the US. Caplan clearly thinks that we can still retain (and even improve) our high standard of living despite mass immigration, but this begs the question why high living standards don't already exist in India or China. Is it lack of physical capital? Is it human capital? Or could it be culture? (Obviously, all three have some impact). Given that capital is attracted towards the highest returns, it seems likely that a lack of human capital or a culture not conducive towards economic flourishing has to be a major cause for the lower living standard. If this is the case, there would be a decrease in the quality of life for the typical resident if third-worlders are imported en-masse.
At one point Caplan hints that indeed that may be the case when he points out that the fictional dystopia of Blade Runner is actually an improvement on modern-day India. This may not be the rock-solid argument he thinks it is. I want my children to enjoy a better life than I have today, not a better life than what a typical Indian has today.
In a guest post (which does not imply Caplan's endorsement), the "worst" neighborhood in Japan is visited. It is still safe and relatively clean. The writer implies that the US can model urban policy off Japan’s success. But again, this ignores the cultural aspect. Japan has a culture of order and cleanliness (and xenophobia). If Japan imported even 5 million Brazilians the "worst" neighborhood in Japan would look quite different.
Again, Caplan misses the "human" aspect of economics.
Exhibit C: Trade Deficit and Geopolitics
Caplan is either ambivalent or in favor of a trade deficit. Caplan posits the idea that the trade deficit could be the result, not the cause, of financial inflows. Rather than a trade deficit resulting in foreign nations having excess dollars that they then spend on US investment, US securities are in such high demand that foreign nations raise the value of the dollar, causing foreign goods to be relatively cheap and leading to a trade deficit. If this argument is correct, then one would expect any economically vibrant and pro-growth country to have a trade deficit. The trade deficit indicates that the US economy and regulatory regime is more conducive to growth.
Yet much like with the UAE, Caplan doesn't seem to grasp the human side of this equation. He assumes economic output is "value free". A service-oriented economy begets a pampered paper-pusher bureaucracy, while the relocation of former blue-collar work to "higher-value" labor hasn't happened at scale. The service economy erodes the will and ability to actually build in the physical world, while the dearth of blue-collar work has led to zombie communities addicted to handouts and opiates. A country should choose to focus industrial policy on broad outcomes including domestic production. Any economy needs direction lest it degenerate. The invisible hand of the market finds local maxima, but it takes vision to push the hand towards a global maxima.
Since Caplan has a tendency to see everything through the lens of economics, he minimizes the geopolitical implications of US policy. We are in the middle of a great geopolitical reset in which protectionist policy plays a key part. The Trump administration has given up Europe as lost. The US is now competing for influence in areas where China has traditionally dominated (including the Arab states that Caplan extols). The remnants of the Bretton-woods post-war international order is being shattered. This is the main takeaway from tariff and trade policy, not the myopic economic impact.
A recommendation
Despite my criticisms, I'm glad that there is an anarcho-capitalist whose ideas have purchase in the rationalist community. A very positive change I've observed over the last decade is the steady increase in liberals acknowledging the benefit of the market and the harm of overregulation, and Caplan’s work has contributed to this change. I would like to see Caplan have even more impact.
Caplan correctly notes that the market forces good policy even where that policy has bad optics, while politicians pursue bad policy that has good optics. This provides a potential key to seeing his (good) economic ideas actually gain purchase: fight the battles that you can actually win. There is much political will to create energy abundance (natural gas and nuclear in particular) and to address NIMBYist red tape; once we are allowed to build, other "good" policies (such as mass labor importation) may become more politically viable. Indeed, even in the UAE plentiful energy preceded plentiful immigration.
PyotrVerkhovensky
1mo ago
Our Good Friday service is intentionally unsettling. More than most Protestant churches, we lean into iconography and ritual; and at no time more so than during Holy Week.
The service is conducted in darkness; no lights are on in the sanctuary. All crosses in the sanctuary are covered in a black veil. The priests and clergy wear only black.
The clergy process silently; holding aloft the Bible and a shrouded cross. The service begins with a reading from of the Passion from the Gospel of John. The congregation participates: we are the voice of the crowd shouting "crucify him!" and "we have no king but Caesar!".
There is a time of contemplation, where we meditate on the cross. We echo a frame that is more common during Christmas. "O come let us adore him". Yet now we aren't adoring God made flesh; but rather that flesh broken on an instrument of torture. Adore it. For that is what our sin has caused, and what we deserve for our sin.
The music team sings "Ye who think of sin but lightly nor suppose the evil great, here may view its nature rightly, here its guilt may estimate.". My nine year old quietly sobs beside me. There is no shame in doing so. In the our same row a seminary student with an intricate "Pro Rege" tattoo is weeping as well.
The music ends. A quiet Lords' Prayer is recited, then the clergy recess in silence and darkness. The service is ended. Now must we wait. Easter is coming, but a day of entombed darkness must be endured before the glorious resurrection.
PyotrVerkhovensky
2mo ago
My personal opinion is that markets are highly overvalued, and a correction needed to be made at some point. The rise of index funds, ironically, have made markets less efficient. But, that is, like, my opinion man.
Tariffs do have a secondary negative effect on financial markets. As I said in my original post, reducing the trade deficit will decrease the amount of US dollars "abroad", which will reduce foreign investment in the US. This is a bad thing if you are a retiree spending your accumulated savings; it is a good thing if you are young and looking to buy a house or invest in stocks (as these investments become cheaper).
PyotrVerkhovensky
2mo ago
That estimate shows zero understanding of economics. The actual tariff burden will be the deadweight loss caused by relative price changes as imported goods become more expensive. Relative price changes and imports becoming more expensive are driven by the elasticity of consumer demand for imports and the price pressure that US companies (such as Walmart) can put on their global suppliers, respectively.
The 600 billion is only tangentially related to the actual tariff burden, and, being government revenue, is actually a benefit to US households (the money can be returned to US households via tax breaks, spending, or debt servicing).
PyotrVerkhovensky
2mo ago
It's really unconvincing that all the arguments for tariffs I see are so contradictory. It's "Hey we can have our cake and eat it too!". You can't use them as a negotiation tool that gets lowered, a consistent tool to reduce imports and build up local supply chains, and a reliable means of taxation all at the same time.
Given I started with a list of dangers to tariffs I'm not sure why you think my post was an unmitigated endorsement for tariffs. I enumerated potential dangers and benefits. Not all outcomes can or will be realized. Tariffs "can" be used to raise revenue. Tariffs "can" be used for statecraft. It is unlikely that they can be used for both, especially long-term.
You have to be extremely dominant that international corporations will choose you exclusively over the rest of the world combined and you need some way to assure them that it won't be undone anytime soon.
The US is rather dominant. The world wants access to our markets.
Just imagine a world where all countries want everything done on their own land and they all enact high tariffs. We'll just have a less efficient system where everyone tries to achieve autarky and then we'll wait for another Adam Smith to come around and tell us all that this is stupid and we should just trade with each other.
And yet most countries already have protectionist policies. If we can use tariffs to push the rest of the world to a more efficient system (by forcing everyone else to give up their protectionist policies in exchange for us dropping tariffs), I'm assuming that would be a good thing in your eyes? (I'm not saying Trump will do this, but it is one way to use tariffs).
PyotrVerkhovensky
2mo ago
That's the first time I've been accused of being too neutral! Let me try to be less so: Income taxes are bad. We have had them for over a century. Tariffs are bad. We have not had them to this extent for nearly a century. Yet in a world in which Trump EO'd the income tax to zero rather than implementing tariffs there would be the same hand-wringing, from the same people, who are currently saying tariffs will destroy the economy. The hypocrisy irritates me.
PyotrVerkhovensky
2mo ago
Yes, subsidies can be more targeted. But they are also more prone to capture and create a culture of dependency. It is similar to a government deciding to cut taxes or increase spending: while in theory both result in more money to the populace, psychologically "keeping more of my well-earned money" is healthier than "I'm receiving more free handouts".
This will be a dry post: I'm laying out my thoughts over the tariff discussions of the last few days as succinctly as I can.
Dangers to tariffs:
- Tariffs that are higher than other countries can incentivize domestic companies to move abroad to gain access to cheaper inputs. It has similar negative incentives to a high corporate income tax (the latter of which was reduced in 45's term to be more in line with the rest of the world).
- Danger of a trade war loss. If you don't have market power (attractive consumer base or exports) then a trade war is likely to end in a loss. Costs will be passed to citizens. The US is rather unique in having outsized market power.
- Protectionism can lead to complacency in the citizenry. Lack of competition breeds inefficiency and lethargy. The workforce and economy needs to be sufficiently diverse to maintain competition.
- Less efficient global distribution of resources.
- Tariffs are distortionary in a way that (flat) income tax and universal sales tax are not.
- Less foreign investment (assuming trade deficit shrinks). A trade deficit means US dollars go abroad: those dollars have to come back somehow, usually in the form of investment. Losing this foreign injection of capital is a double edged sword: a benefit is that it will make investments cheaper for domestic savers (cheaper stocks, cheaper housing). This will benefit younger generations who are buying the cheaper stocks and housing at the expense of retirees.
Economic/Political Benefits to tariffs:
- If you are in a position of strength, it can distort the global economy in your favor. Companies may wish to domicile in your country (especially if you have low corporate income tax rates) in order to access your consumers and/or workforce.
- Supply chains will become more intra-national, improving national security.
- If you are in a position of strength, it is a useful foreign policy tool.
- If everyone else is doing tariffs except you, then the economy is already distorted; and implementing reciprocal tariffs may "un-distort" the global economy.
- If you want to raise revenue and you don't fear a trade war, tariffs may have less of an impact on GDP as other methods of taxation (eg, income tax).
Ideological benefits to tariffs:
- Less interconnected global economy leads to less systemic risk (anti-fragile). The revealed fragility of supply chains during Covid shocked me, and made me realize we have traded efficiency for instability. I wrestle with this on a more local level here: https://pyotrverkhovensky.substack.com/p/texas-roadhouse.
- Destruction of the Bretton-Woods post-war hegemony.
- Reciprocal tariffs punishes other nations for constantly hitting "defect" in an iterative "trade" game. It could force the world towards a better equilibrium.
- Tariffs are explicitly allowed in the Constitution, income tax had to have an amendment.
Other thoughts:
If you are going to do protectionism, tariffs are better than subsidies.
Tariffs will change the relative cost of goods, but being a tax they should be net deflationary rather than inflationary.
Sanctions are like extreme "reverse" tariffs; if Russia and Iran are any example energy-rich countries seem to weather sanctions well.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
I wrote last week on Revenge of the Sith, and how it benefited from the ambiguity between the "good" side and the bad. As Padme said, "[what if] the Republic has become the very evil we have been fighting to destroy?" @SubstantialFrivolity responded that, despite its flaws, Revenge of the Sith was the best of the Star Wars movies due to this complexity, and mildly criticized the original Star Wars for being a derivative "hero's journey".
Since I first watched Star Wars at age 7 (just before the abominable Special Editions came out, in its unadulterated form) it has been my favorite movie.
It is not a derivative "hero's journey". It is a distilled "hero's journey". A restless youth is trapped in a backwater. One day he seizes the opportunity to do something greater, and is suddenly thrust into confrontations of galactic import. He rescues a literal princess, with the help of a ragtag band of comrades. And while he doesn't "get the girl", that is not actually a critical component of a hero's story: rather what distinguishes the Journey is the acceptance and subsequential overcoming of an offered challenge.
A key part of a hero's journey is that the morality of the conquest is never in doubt. In Star Wars, evil is evil and good is good. From the first moment of the movie, where a gigantic, sharp, wedge shaped ship fires on a smaller, fleeing vessel; to the black, masked villain stepping into the pristine white interior; to the almost flippant destruction of an entire planet, the Evil Empire is clearly evil. The princess is being held captive, and it is a moral imperative to rescue her. The Death Star is threatening to kill all the characters we have met throughout the movie, and it is obviously a moral good to destroy it.
It is a common modern trope for a Hero to self-doubt and self-incriminate following the successful completion of the quest. (We see this writ large in our society's embarrassment over "colonialization"; which, at the time, was a manifestation of an "ascendent" society). Yet Star Wars had such clear Heroes and Villains that it carried through three sequels unexamined. It wasn't until the second movie of the sequel Trilogy that this narrative began to be subverted (and explains the audience backlash against The Last Jedi).
In short, Star Wars is pure. It is purified in its distillation of the Hero's Journey. It is pure in its depiction of Good and Evil. It is pure in its innocence. From the humble beginnings on a desert planet to the triumphant return of the motif in the Throne Room, Star Wars perfectly embodies something elemental and essential, untainted by cynicism or doubt.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
I think Lucas has great ideas: Star Wars and THX-1138 are both interesting concepts. I'm not sure how involved he was in the special effects for the Original Trilogy, but they were revolutionary for the time. I don't think he is a good screenwriter or director. The success of the first Star Wars (I refuse to call it "A New Hope" :)) can be attributed to a lot of luck (it originally wasn't going to even have a score) and creative tension and pushback from the actors and crew. Harrison Ford and Mark Hamil would change their lines or ad-lib; summarized pithily, famously, and probably mistakenly by Harrison Ford's "You can write this, but you can't say it". Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were not directed by Lucas. Empire Strikes Back in particular, widely considered the best of the Trilogy, had relatively little creative involvement by Lucas.
It has been 20 years since Revenge of the Sith came out. The entire Star Wars series was formational in my childhood and teenage years, and Revenge of the Sith was one of the few movies I saw in theaters as a teenager. When it was released, it was widely considered a step above the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. The story was darker and more mature; and Jar Jar was essentially non-existent.
I just rewatched it as a 35 year old. So how well has it held up over the last twenty years?
First, the good:
- On a technical level, while digital movie cameras were still in their relative infancy, it has a sharper and crisper look than Attack of the Clones. Attack of the Clones was the first major picture to be shot entirely digitally rather than with 35 or 70 mm film, and it shows. Many of the shots are soft and do not have the detail of film. The lack of "analog noise" and the ease of imposing digital effects were the only benefits in 2002; by 2005 the situation had improved considerably.
- Lightsabers show up vibrantly on early digital cameras. They seem to visually "pop" out of the screen.
- The sound design was widely considered a disappointment after the tour-de-force of the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. However, there are still some solid scenes. Anakin's lightsaber effect as he ignites it before killing the younglings has a deep and menacing bass note that can only truly can be appreciated on a high-end system. The heart-thump juxtaposition during the twin birth scene and the rise of Darth Vader is top-notch, and again can only be appreciated with a good sound system. Surround activity is mostly active and ships whiz seamlessly across the sound stage.
- John Williams has some of his best work. He weaves in the Imperial March throughout the final half of the movie, notably during Darth Vader's destruction of the separatists and more subtly during Padme's funeral and construction of the Death Star. The haunting twilight moment between Anakin and Padme as they gaze at each other across Coruscant is a perfect mixture of sound and cinematography. Indeed, that scene is the pivotal point where the movie starts taking itself seriously.
- Speaking of cinematography, there are some outstanding moments as well. While keeping the Star Wars feel, there are some genuinely powerful framing; including the aforementioned Coruscant scene, the "Order 66" scene, Padme's funeral (with the camera fading on Anakin's childhood gift to Padme), and Darth Vader being carried to the medical center during a thunderstorm.
- Padme is portrayed as a tough, no compromise idealist during the first two movies. Marriage and pregnancy seem to have softened her. Even at the end, when confronted with Anakin's "evil" she doesn't fully turn on him. If Anakin hadn't gone berserk when seeing Obi Wan, she may have been convinced to support him even as he took power in the Empire. As I grow older, I consider duty a high calling, and I believe she should have continued to support Anakin (until, that is, he tried to kill her) even as he ascended into Power. The fact that there was this ambiguity in a major blockbuster is pleasantly surprising, and stands in contrast to (say) Chani in the film adaptation of Dune. (As an aside...Dune is supposed to be "Star Wars for grown ups" yet the heroine acts more like a child than in Star Wars).
- There is some good--sometimes great--acting by Ewan McGregor. He was a standout among a cast that includes some excellent actors (including later Best Actress Natalie Portman). Ian McDiarmid also has one or two excellent scenes, in particular the conversation with Anakin at the opera.
- The story itself is not a "black and white" "good versus evil" story. The Jedi really are plotting to take control of the Senate. They truly are lost: they lack conviction in their own ideals. They play the politics like any other faction. If it wasn't for the (contrived? arbitrary?) distinction between the Jedi and the "Dark Side", it would have been difficult to say who was "in the right" (at least, until kids started getting slaughtered).
Now for the bad:
- The CGI. CGI will never stand up over time...and yet everything was CGI. Even the Clones were needlessly CGI. The actors spend the entire film against green screen. There were scenes that were obviously shot in a comfortable setting, but Lucas thought would look "cooler" in a more "action" shot, and so actors who are sitting on a green-screen couch are now suddenly supposed to be skimming a few miles in the air. Actors need some context to understand how to act, which is entirely lost if they are transported to a completely different setting post-production.
- The 2005 digital cameras were loud and most of the dialog was lip-synced after shooting. This doesn't help an actor "feel" the scene.
- While the actors certainly didn't get much help from the script or the technology, the acting still disappoints. Actors don't emote. They look like they are reading from a script. Ewan somehow managed to take a lousy script and no direction and still provide believable scenes, but no one else was up to the task.
- The dialog itself is well below average. The movie opening has Obi Wan and Anakin infiltrating an enemy ship. This is intended to be a "fun" part of the movie, and much of the action is enjoyable. However, they are given lines that are clearly intended to be "quippy" but simply fall flat. The "best" line is Anakin's "no loose-wire jokes" when Obi-Wan doubts R2's capabilities. There are dozens of lines that are even worse.
- This is a movie of two halves, and the first half is far worse than the second. The first half is a lighthearted and rather stupid romp. The other is a serious and dark drama. It is whiplash to go between the two.
- Anakin's fall to the dark side is too sudden to be believable. Is he after power? Is he distrustful of the Jedi? Does he just want to save Padme? Is he jealous of Padme and Obi-Wan? There can be multiple reasons to ultimately make a life-altering decision, but none of these are truly fleshed out in a way that makes me believe he would turn to the Dark Side. The way to seduce Anakin is through promises of power and through making him feel part of the "inner circle". Yet Palpatine transparently lies to Anakin throughout the movie: from hiding his identity as a Sith Lord to praising Anakin for bringing peace when by that point everyone knows Palpatine orchestrated the entire war.
- This movie also features some of John William's worst work. The most egregious is the copy/pasta of Duel of the Fates during Yoda and Palpatine's fight. The finale of the duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan feels like a music video more than a movie.
- Certain scenes have abysmal sound design. While overall the movie feels more "compressed" (less variation between quiet and loud sounds) than Episode I and II, the Jedi confrontation with Palpatine is especially bad. There is almost no dynamic range. Surrounds have little activity. It almost sounds like it was mixed for stereo. General Grievous's death similarly lacks bass where it is severely needed, making the entire battle feel fake and inconsequential.
- Now that I have three kids, Padme's death seems ludicrous. Once you have kids, they become your will to live, replacing pretty much everything else.
Other notes:
- Both sides try to paint the other as intolerant and unyielding. "Only the Sith deal in absolutes". "If one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the Force." Much was made at the time that the "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" line was a dig at George Bush's "if you are not with us, you are against us". Now, it just feels like an anachronism from an era where the only "bad" thing was intolerance.
- The Star Wars movies do not explicitly say why the "Dark Side" is bad. They say hate and anger are key to the Dark Side, and the sinister aesthetics of the Emperor and Darth Vader certainly hint at evil. But when taking a step back, they seem like standard fare politicians, rather than something intrinsically "evil". And the "good" side, as mentioned before, has become just another political faction; also interested in power. Perhaps this is justification for Anakin's sudden turn: there isn't much outward difference between the "good" and "bad" side; so one may as well join the winning side.
The scripting flaws of Episode III reveal just how bad Episode I and II were. Episode I was almost entirely a waste: it introduces Padme and Anakin, and shows Palpatine gaining power. Nothing else in that movie was important for later films. Episode I should have started in Coruscant, where Anakin was in training to be a Jedi and Padme was a senator's assistant. This would have revealed the tension and interplay between the various factions and let their love grow in a far more believable setting. The Clone Wars would have started during Episode I, possibly with the destruction of a large portion of the Senate, which would have helped accelerate Anakin's and Padme's careers. Episode II would have been focused mainly on the Clone Wars, possibly showing how destructive it was even to the core of the Republic. It would also show the growing distrust between Anakin and Obi-Wan, and Anakin's budding desire for power. A risky move would have been to make Obi-Wan the twin's father, but it would have made the journey to the Dark Side far more believable. Episode III would then have been entirely about the Anakin's fall, and the destruction of the Jedi.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
What drives Zelensky? While surely a mix of motives coalesces into his behavior and decisions, I posit the following are primary candidates:
- Beneficence of the Ukrainian people
- Will of the Ukrainian people
- Hatred of Russia
- Desire to retain power
The first motive simply states that Zelensky is operating to maximize his country's well-being. This often means making difficult choices, and ones that may appear detrimental in the short-run. I think Zelensky's brave choice to remain in Kiev in the opening weeks of the war was a demonstration of this: risking his own life to inspire and lead his armies as they fought the invading force. However, if he now is truly attempting to maximize his people's well-being, he should have signed the rare-earth agreement with the United States. His childish behavior (inappropriate attire, attempting to alter the deal in front of the press, insolence to a nation responsible for his nation still existing) put the deal at risk, and seems to indicate that his country’s well-being no longer holds paramount sway in Zelensky.
The second frames Zelensky as a conduit for his people's will. In this sense he serves as an ambassador petitioning support for his people and their cause. Again, I think in the early days this objective clearly was a major motivator. He was able to transmute sympathy into aid, keeping his nation afloat with economic and military materiel as patriotic fervor swelled his armies with volunteers. Yet now we are three years into the war, and conscription has replaced volunteerism. The average age of the fighting man is over 40. Zelensky has resisted calls for an election, which while he has the legal right to do still undermines any claim to be operating with the people's mandate.
The third motive has been in the background for the entire war. Yet now it may be moving to the forefront. In his interview with Lex Friedman, Zelensky dismissed any idea of negotiating with Putin. He refused to speak in Russian (despite it being a common language between Friedman and Zelensky) and went out of his way to say Putin would be "forced to pay" for the things he has done. This could certainly be grandstanding, but such a hatred would also explain his recent behavior in Washington. If driven primarily by hatred for Russia, he would risk sacrificing his own people to reduce the probability of a cease fire. In this case, he may well have gone to DC with no intention of signing the rare-earths deal, and intentionally blew it up (though doubtless he didn’t desire the dressing-down he received).
The desire to retain power, while clearly the most damning for Zelensky, also fits the recent facts. If there was a cease fire or a peace agreement, Zelensky would risk deposition. His stature in the world and his ability to remain in quasi-dictatorial power comes from the war. It is in his best interests to keep the war going at all expense.
Many commentators seem to assume Zelensky is operating primarily under one of the first two motivations. Certainly those with Ukrainian flags in their avatars conflate Zelensky with the Ukrainian people. Yet given recent circumstances I can no longer assume the interests of the Ukrainian people and Zelensky are aligned. And the rest of the West shouldn't either.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
There are four categories of government spending:
- spending that hurts the US and the World (eg, funding LGBTQ+ agendas across the globe)
- spending that is ambivalent to the US but helps the World (eg, PEPFAR)
- spending that is good for the US, but may not be the best way to spend the dollar (eg, Science research/funding)
- spending that is unambiguously a good marginal return on investment (I can't think of an example)
The first category should be defunded. The second category should spawn a discussion on what the purpose of government is. Is it to maximize global utility? At what point should we tradeoff between a citizen's wellbeing and another nation's citizen's wellbeing. The third category should spawn a both a practical debate on the tradeoffs between various alternatives (including returning the money to the taxpayers). The fourth we should keep funding.
However, I'm currently in favor of fast, indiscriminate cuts. We are dealing with a quickly metastasizing cancer and we need aggressive chemotherapy to address it. Chemotherapy so aggressive that yes, hair will fall out and the body will feel deathly sick. Once the cancer is removed, we can again discuss the latter three categories dispassionately and objectively, and fund areas that meet the bar.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
Per usual, I'm late to the action.
As I watched the exchange, it felt like I was witness to a public altercation between a spoiled, petulant teenager acting out and his harried parents trying to contain the situation. The criticism of clothing style, the "who put the roof over your head"-type comments, the "you should be grateful" all played into the trope.
And as usual for public scenes between parents and wayward teenagers, no one came out looking good. The parents become exasperated, the teenager sulks, the public may send sympathetic glances towards the parents but mostly just feel awkward.
More interesting is the reaction of the public. Of course in America one side had to be right, and one wrong; so reaction fell necessarily along partisan lines. Some from both sides hailed this as the end of the international order, with a differing perspective on the desirability of this outcome. But what personally irked me was the reaction of Western European leaders, predictable as it was. When a teenager is acting out in public, you should never defend the teenager. The teenager needs to mature and grow: that happens through both direct criticism and social disapproval (and possibly ostracism until they learn to behave). If anything, public support should got to the parents. Privately there can (and possibly should be) discussion with the parents on how to handle such situations in the future, but petulant anti-socialness should not be condoned: especially when that teenager is responsible for millions of lives.
PyotrVerkhovensky
4mo ago
Thanks for this comment...its good to hear these perspectives.
You make a distinction between the medium and the message...but isn't the medium the message? Whether it be BLM and LGBT in 2010-2022 USA, the "woman question" and "serf's rights" in 1870s Russia, or the Jacobins in 1770s France; the superficial message may change, but the medium stays the same: the attainment of power through societal disruption, revolution, and chaos. It usually begins and ends in blood. In Dostoyevsky's Idiot and Demons there are conversations and confrontations in those books that could be ripped straight out of a 2020 struggle session.
But, if you must make a distinction between the two (and acknowledging that I am not the OP and he/she may have a different take): yes; I dislike both the medium and the message. I think racism is sub-optimal and is a "lesser" sin of envy, but not "abhorrent". Humans cannot have an inalienable right to shelter and healthcare because these things depend on other humans. Did Robinson Crusoe have a right to shelter and healthcare? (He did, as an aside, have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). I think it is a moral imperative to restrict LGBTQ rights and acceptance (uh oh, there goes our shot at a pluralistic society).
In short, I fight both wokeness and extreme progressivism, if it is even possible to disambiguate the two.
PyotrVerkhovensky
5mo ago
Some Guy writes a riveting blog which often includes extended anecdotes purportedly from his childhood and youth. Most of these mix horror, humor, pathos, and sentimentality into a compelling brew. One of his stories ends with his Dad telling him "I don’t fucking care if you’re a faggot or anything. You’re still my son and I still love you". Another is titled "My Micronesian Stepfather was a White Supremacist Amateur Elvis Impersonator". It seems unlikely that all the stories could possibly be true; if they are his is truly one of the more unlucky childhoods of anyone in the United States, and his ability to transcend it to become (what seems to be) an upstanding citizen is miraculous. But in another sense, it doesn't really matter if these stories are true: even as fiction they lose none of their power. Each of these stories could happen, and they contain a core of truth about large swaths of our society.
Some Guy seems to (cautiously and mildly) align with Jordan Peterson on the topic of Cultural Christianity: that is, the concept that even if you don't believe in God, or the Incarnation, or the Resurrection, you should still go to church and perform the outward rituals and ceremonies of the Christian religion. Christianity has, as a meme, proved itself to be pro-social, pro-growth, and pro-peace and we don't have a better replacement. Better to treat Christianity as a Chesterton Fence and embrace it even against your reason than to cast it aside and be left in a Nietzschean void.
Some Guy recently published an article in favor of Cultural Christianity. His main goal in the essay seems to be to convince sympathetic atheists to attend religious services. He calls the "obvious" objections distractions, and seems to think that many of these objections will be naturally addressed through interactions with the religious community. If he is holds orthodox Christian views (I believe he is Roman Catholic), then such questions could only be addressed truthfully in the Church; but he asks these atheists to attend synagogues and mosques as well. Perhaps he considers any religious exposure a positive step in an atheist's journey towards Christ.
In his next section of the essay on Dawkins, he reveals another glimpse into the way he thinks of Christianity. Given the question "Do you believe Jesus died for our sins?", he answers "Yes, but you have to begin from the position that Jesus wasn’t just some guy who arbitrarily claimed a particular title. It was as if morality itself became a person. I find the moral innovations of Jesus to be something close to the mechanical equivalent of finding a functioning F-35 jet plane in ancient Egypt. Do you know what people were like before that guy got nailed to a cross? Crack open a history book.". What an astonishing thing to say! "Jesus died for our sins" is "real" because after Jesus died, we literally sinned less! We went from barbaric and cruel to civilized and moral*.
I'm guessing that the following is a fair summary of Some Guy's theology: Some Guy believes in God. He believes God reveals himself in various ways. Humanity, in its own way, tries to comprehend the transcendent Truth, and does so imperfectly. Over time, humanity gains more and more knowledge of God. Judaism may have been the best human effort to understand God until Christianity came along; and still holds much wisdom and truth. But both Judaism and Christianity merely scratch the surface of what we can possibly understand about God and should not be treated as the final or only word on the matter. The Gospel narrative was humanity's closest interaction with the divine (even if there wasn't a literal incarnation) and the resulting Testament gives us an opaque glimpse into that divine, using the only means that imperfect and distinctly sub-divine humanity could use. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
I disagree with this argument, but I also find it difficult to counter. It is a much more compelling line (though superficially similar) to the "all religions contain truth" platitude that many Gen Xers felt was the best way to end uncomfortable conversations in the 90s and early 00s. I do hold that humanity can never know everything about God (mathematically, this is a certainty: He is infinite, we are finite). And much like I enjoy Some Guy's writing even if his stories are fiction, I accept that there is much wisdom and truth in parables and fiction. As Jordan Peterson might say, "there is more truth in Dostoyevsky than in a newspaper". People will fight and die for an idea much more readily than they will fight and die for a fact. Someone who "believes" in Christianity in such a way could even say the Nicene Creed with a clear conscience: while the words may not be literally true they come the closest that we can come today in capturing our understanding of God.
And yet, the Bible makes many assertions that do not countenance ambiguity. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.". "Today you will be with me in paradise". And "For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! .... If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." These are not the words of apostles that are struggling to describe the transcendent: these are definitive statements made by those who believed they were writing factual accounts. Without the literal Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, we truly do not have hope and are among all the most to be pitied.
*Empirically, I do not find this argument compelling...humanity even in "Christian" Europe remained quite "cruel" (at least by modern sensibilities). Yes, Christianity elevated the status of children, women, and the downtrodden; but wars and violence continued (and continue) to be the norm.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9mo ago
Reduce the franchise to one vote per household who have at least two children between 0 and 18. The benefits:
- Strong societal pressure for marriage and children
- Shift vote from narcissistic youth and the obdurate aged towards those with the lowest time preference. We would see social security reform, housing and schooling reform, and a better mix of energy and maturity from our politics.
- Decrease in political activism: parents of 2+ children between 0 and 18 don't have the time.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9mo ago
I'm late to this thread, but I did read Scott's post a few days ago. I don't love any of his examples or his framing. To me there are three categories to consider:
- Personally not watching/buying something either because the content doesn't align with my values or the company doesn't align with my values
- Organizing a group of like-minded people to not watch/buy something (boycott)
- Organizing a group of like-minded people to pressure a company to take an action (firing an employee, making a financial contribution to a cause, or disavowing/distance from statements previously made)
The first two categories are not cancel culture. They are just economics and personal/group preference. Companies may change their behavior in response to the economic reality, including terminating employees, but these are in response to employees directing the company in an unprofitable direction. The desired outcome, if accomplished at all, is achieved passively. All choices are made by the company in response to changing circumstances. Budweiser, Gillette, and Dixie Chicks all fall into this category.
The third category is cancel culture. It is a direct and active demand on the company to change it's behavior in some way. The company often has no direct economic rationale for taking the action. The action, if taken, is done to placate the mob. Gina Carano was well liked as Cara Dune, but Disney caved under pressure. My own company, who publicly espouses values disconnected from their core mission that are somewhat misaligned from my own, would happily sacrifice me to avoid an online mob, despite my opinions having zero to do with my company's profitability. Indeed, official policy states that an employee is liable to termination if they make controversial posts and are subsequently revealed to be an employee. This has an absolutely chilling effect on speech.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9mo ago
Sure, if you use a simple utility function (say, 1-e^{-x}), where x is millions of dollars, then the "sure bet" in choice 1 has utility 1-exp(-1)=.63 while the "gamble" ([.01, .89, .1]) under the real-world measure has utility (1-exp(-1))*.89+(1-exp(-5))*.1=.66. By adjusting the probabilities to (as an example) [.1, .89, .01] then the under this new measure the utility is (1-exp(-1))*.89+(1-exp(-5))*.01=.57, which is less than .63.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9mo ago
They can yes, and there may be cases (I can't think of one off the top of my head) where the actual probabilities are required. But if the objective is to be able to represent preferences via expectations of utility functions (and take advantage of all the benefits that such a representation can provide), then such a representation can be achieved under an equivalent measure instead. Its not too different conceptually from using "risk neutral" probabilities in asset pricing.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9mo ago
No, the Allais paradox is only a violation of the 4th axiom from the von Neummann-Morgenstern theorem. This axiom is necessary to show the existence of a representation of preferences by an expectation under the "real world" measure. My point is that the 4th axiom isn't necessary for such a representation. The measure under which expectations must be taken may need to change, but the use of expectations is still valid. Its not the utility function but the probabilities that are changed.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9mo ago
The Allais' case would be where E[u(X)]<E[u(Y)] even though X is preferred to Y. But as long as there is a non-zero probability that the outcome of X (let's call it x) is preferred to the outcome of Y (y), the probabilities can be re-weighted to put more emphasis on the state of the world in which x>y. A trivial example would be simply giving weight only to the probabilities for which x>y.
In practice, in a discrete probability space, the re-weighted probabilities can be represented as a non-negative least-squares problem. Let U be a matrix which holds the utility of each gamble in each state, multiplied by the real-world probability of each state. Let b be the actual utility of the gamble. Then minimize | | Ax-b | |. The altered probabilities xp/sum(xp) then form the measure v under which E_v[u(X)]>E_v[u(Y)].
PyotrVerkhovensky
9mo ago
There have been other non-political posts here that have gotten some engagement but this one may be too niche :). Thanks for letting me know about lesswrong, I have heard of it but have only visited a handful of times.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9mo ago
Not without doxxing myself, unfortunately...
It's interesting that so many of the replies here seem to be "yes, but the other side is worse" or "yes, we need to take the bad with the good" or even "yes Chad".
I'm a Trump fan but I abhor corruption and wouldn't want to turn a blind eye to it. That said...only two of your examples (if true) would count as corruption?
More options
Context Copy link