site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   27045 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Something interesting is happening in Mexico. I will preface by saying this is a fact-finding point of analysis at this time but seems interesting. I have not yet made up an opinion on the situation.

Today Mexico elected Claudia Sheinbaum. Despite being widely expected Mexico etfs and markets took a huge dive. EWW appears to be one of the more popular etfs and was down 11% today. Milei and Trump each had big day 1 sell-offs but if my memory is correct both after winning elections had calm and relatively unchanged equity indexes by the close of U.S. trading.

Sheinbaum is from the same political party that has been running Mexico - AMLO. The big difference is the election was more of a landslide than expected. Super-majorities in Congress that will be able to pass whatever they want. She is even being called by the U.S. msm as a lifelong leftist. Her grandparents when they left Europe were both Jewish and communists.

On the plus side she was mayor of Mexico City and achieved a 10-15% reduction in murder (I usually think murder data is trustworthy). She does appear to be smart and technocratic but very left. I believe I saw her show support for Palestine and there is talk she will be friendly with Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia.

The other interesting thing to me is a Jewish (secular) women feels very odd as a national candidate to me in Mexico. No Spanish or indigenous roots. And Mexico’s Jewish population is extremely small (though as always there are some big hitters). Which feels very odd to me for a society to elect such an outsider (maybe Obama is close?). Also I guess she’s had some birther style attacks.

I talked to a few Mexican friends. One said he hated her and she was a communists, also said she wasn’t Jewish which surprised me as I thought most people considered Jewish an ethnicity. The other seems more open-minded.

Trump being elected could make negotiations between them tense since they are opposites on the political spectrum.

As far as markets go I want to figure out how she will govern. Mexico does seem to have some tailwinds with reshoring so the discount today looks interesting. The counter is the degree of the election victory means she has a mandate so if she does have leftist instincts I think there is a risks Mexico ends up on an Argentina or Venezuela path for a while. If you feel confident you can underwrite her politics will be more of a technocrat with leftist vibes/rhetoric but largely AMLO continuation then it’s an interesting time to pick up Mexico exposure at a discount.

https://x.com/BrazilBrian/status/1797627767808294933

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/03/world/americas/claudia-sheinbaum-jewish-mexico-president.html

A lot of becoming President/PM/etc is pure luck; being a competent political operator, sure, but being in the right place and right time. There could certainly have been a Jewish President of the US by now (and probably any time from the 70s onward), it didn’t happen for a variety of reasons but none are on the level that they precluded it from happening, they were just headwinds. Parliamentary systems elect more outsiders because leaders are chosen by MPs or by parties, rather than by the public, which is why you have more women and minority PMs than Presidents. Still, even that’s not prescriptive.

Slightly off topic, but it's kind of remarkable that Mexico elected a Jewish president before the US (and it's a younger democracy as well).

There are a number of dynamics in US politics that have made it hard for a Jewish Democrat to become President. Not impossible by any means, but difficult because of the nature of the Democratic base and the historic constituencies that made it up. The best shot would probably be as a business Republican with heartland appeal, and as Mark Levin quipped, there is something kind of intrinsically Jewish about Donald Trump. He’s a sleazy Queens slumlord who took on Manhattan and became president of the most powerful country on earth. He has chutzpah.

Trump, an honorary Jew? I'm not seeing it.

A strong New York accent is not enough to make a Jew out of Trump. Noveau riche gaudiness is not enough to make a Jew out of Trump. Shamelessly leaning into "I want my accountants wearing yarmulkes, not daishikis" stereotypes is not enough to make a Jew out of Trump.

What are you seeing that I'm not?

His enemies paint him to be about as sleazy as a typical Jew in antisemitic caricature..

Apart from his affinity to Jews, we have got chutzpah, high verbal ability, comedic talent and reputed sleaziness.

There's something to it for sure even if we're objective.

This is mostly a joke, but... Jewish grandchildren?

Looking at the list of Jewish presidential candidates, there's plenty of right wingers and libertarians (also curiously several green party members). Indeed, the guy who got closest was Goldwater.

That's kind of a Latin American thing, right? electing outsiders. Fujimori in Peru, Bukele in el Salvador, I think some others I'm forgetting. They like electing ethnic outsiders.

There's an old joke in India that the country would be much better off if all control of governance was handed over to the very small group of Zoroastrians that constitute the Parsis.

They're known to be competent and not have any particular beef with others, and they could be as corrupt as they like without making a dent, given how few of them there are.

Unfortunately, there's even fewer now, to the point where there's hilarious advertising by both governments and their interest groups alike for the few eligible bachelors and bachelorettes left to attend a few sponsored dating events and just fucking hook up already.

So I suppose there's merit in looking at entrenched and bickering ethnic or religious groups, going fuck that and hoping someone else does better.

not have any particular beef with others

To be fair, the Hindus don't have a beef with anyone else, or even others, or even alone.

Maybe I'm sleep deprived on duty because I took you seriously for a moment and was going to go on a diatribe about that lol.

But surprisingly enough, there are Hindus who consume beef. More commonly in Southern India.

Once, I was stupid enough to order a hamburger in Kochi. Worst fucking abomination I've ever eaten. Like the chef had learned how to prepare it from eavesdropping on tourists talking about burgers.

I've seen Tamil Sri Lankan restaurants with beef on the menu, is this typical or just random emigrant change?

If they're Buddhist, they're usually not that beholden to prohibitions on beef, but otherwise, they fall in with the other Hindus from down south in India who do partake in it. Those are Tamil Hindus, and even some of the Brahmins eat it.

Isn't it mostly buffalo meat though?

In terms of what's usually consumed? Yes. But they do eat plain old beef, from cows.

But surprisingly enough, there are Hindus who consume beef. More commonly in Southern India.

I didn't know that. Goes to show that there are no true universal generalisations about Hindus, including this one.

Always thought it was wild that Biden is only the 2nd Catholic president.

I find the disappearance of the Episcopalian (and in turn the White-Anglo-Saxon Protestant) from the hallowed halls they used to populate fascinating. There hasn't been an Episcopalian president since George Bush Sr, but it seems to me that he consciously eschewed all the WASP trappings and presented himself as a Southerner good ol' boy; Bush went so far as to adopt the culture war causes of evangelicals, such as school prayer and abortion, which don't have as much resonance to mainline protestants. More presidents have been Episcopalian than any other religion but they seem to be going the way of Unitarians and deists in terms of being a politically influential group that has all but become irrelevant.

The EC has been shrinking and getting older for a while, so it makes sense that Catholics have supplanted them on the Supreme Court for demographic reasons as well (Amy Coney Barrett has 7 kids). Perhaps the fact that every big ticket university that was religiously affiliated with mainline protestantism has become secular while the Catholic institutions have remained Catholic has something to do with them having an outsized influence in politics and law.

Why? Catholics have always been a minority in the US and its not like we just shake the American globe and pick someone. They are also largely new arrivals (comparatively). I think its true that, aside from Obama, every US president has traceable American lineage from before the civil war. You typically need time in America, generations of time, to actually understand the country and its politics.

Obama does have US lineage from before the civil war- amusingly, from a plantation owner.

Through which parent?

His mother. His father actually literally is from Kenya.

I did not know that. I was under the impression his mother's family were mostly Ellis Island era immigrants. But I am interested who is the outlier.

His mother I believe. I can't remember if it's the ancestor he shares with his wife or not (that would be a little too pat)

I did include the weirdness of a Jew in this discussion because I think it’s interesting.

The lack of Catholics in the U.S. is not weird at all. Catholics have to maintain loyalty with Rome on certain matters. That’s a problem in a non majority Catholic country. But makes them very appealing for Supreme Court Justices.

It’s questionable whether Joe is Catholic at this point as he’s not in communion with Rome.

Uh huh. And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

You’re quoting a very popular historical excuse to keep the Catholics down and/or out. I hear JFK was controversial for the same reason. But if you’ve got to split hairs to figure out why it doesn’t apply to this particular guy, perhaps it’s not actually a reasonable stereotype?

When was the last time you saw one betray the U.S. for Rome, anyway?

I am Catholic. It’s not some popular historical excuse. It’s legitimate.

And yes if you publically declare yourself against fundamental Catholic doctrine you are in fact not Catholic. You are ethnic Catholic.

The reason Catholics could not be POTUS is because we had an oath to the Pope. If your not doing that then I don’t know what to say. You are just an ethnic Catholic.

I would betray the US for Rome. Though in reality I would not be betraying the US for Rome I would be leading the US on the correct path.

Though in reality I would not be betraying the US for Rome I would be leading the US on the correct path.

That seems more like a rationalization. The papacy has been corrupted by politics any number of times in history. What makes you sure Rome would actually have America's best interests at heart?

Also the Pope himself seems to somewhat disagree with you in that Biden has not been excommunicated, has taken Communion in Rome and is the President. So potentially you are wrong and Rome is right, or you are right and Rome is making decisions based on political considerations (that excommunicating a Catholic US President would be a bad idea) and if that is true then you also can't be sure that other choices are actually made for the right reasons?

Either way your surety upon this subject seems like it is built on shaky ground.

The reason Catholics could not be POTUS is because we had an oath to the Pope.

What's this called?

Papal Primacy.

There are some complications in theology but basically that.

And yes I think there is a fundamental difference between a sinner out of commune with the Church for their personal behavior and someone who promotes others to sin.

Right, but what's the Oath itself called and when do Catholics make it?

More comments

It’s questionable whether Joe is Catholic at this point as he’s not in communion with Rome.

Biden seems to have taken communion in Rome as recently as 2021. At least formally, that would seem to imply that Rome considers his opinions to be within the range of acceptable views of Catholic orthodoxy. I'm sure he has a few heretical beliefs (his pro-choice legal stance most notably), but I doubt most people would consider him "non-Catholic" by most definitions. By that standard, most American Catholics are "non-Catholic" since it is common to deviate in opinion and practice on things like birth control, sex outside of marriage, etc.

By that standard, most American Catholics are "non-Catholic" since it is common to deviate in opinion and practice on things like birth control, sex outside of marriage, etc.

nervous laughter

Yeah, um, about that ..... we're talking it over.

More seriously; there's a growing division in the church over just these issues. And American Catholics are definitely near the center of it. And while Pope Francis might not care so much about the opinions of Yanqui Capitalists, the realities of the needs to convert within the developing world means that he'll bend a knee to the African bishops as necessary

Catholics have to maintain loyalty with Rome on certain matters.

Not to look at U.S. catholic opinion surveys, which routinely show significant support for changing major aspects of church doctrine regarding sexuality and gender, among other things.

Then those people aren’t in communion with Rome either. Being Catholic shouldn’t be easy. Going to the gym isn’t easy.

This is like saying a 500 lb man is attractive because he thinks he’s attractive.

I mean, yes. But they're still generally recognized as "Catholic" by the broader American populace, which doesn't really pay attention to internal doctrinal niceties. Nancy Pelosi still counts as "catholic" for general U.S. purposes, despite having views on abortion and gender wildly out of step with official church doctrine (though I'm not so sure the German catholics would disagree with her...)

Nancy Pelosi is, quite literally, under church discipline for her stance on abortion.

By one archbishop, but given Communion by another. Part of the Catholic Church counts her as Catholic at the very least.

More comments

And what percentage of the populace knows that, or cares? If she were elected President she'd be counted as a "Catholic" just as a non-practicing Jew would be counted as "Jewish."

I think it's more like Jews that don't keep the sabbath or eat kosher, it's part of your ancestral identity rather than representing any belief in divine revelation.

Even Sunday mass itself is obligatory, along with a smattering of holy days of obligation. So if you're not giving any weight to that rule, you're unlikely to give any weight to the others. The non-weekly attenders that happen to align with the church are doing so on accident, the church isn't the source of their opinion.

They might go to church for Christmas and Easter. Very few priests would use those as a platform to catechize the cultural Catholics. The most I've seen is gentle nudging, like "Look how hard it was to find parking today, people had to park in the neighhborhood. A lot of you must not be coming every week, and you really should!"

Still Catholics have been a fairly large chunk of the population for the majority of the USA's history and include quite a few successful European ethnic groups that have not experienced significant censure. The Supreme Court is 6/9 Catholic (according to Wikipedia I have no idea who's practicing/adherent)

ACB, Thomas, and Alito are devout practicing Catholics. Kavanaugh is probably a bit less so. Roberts I have no idea.

It’s questionable whether Joe is Catholic at this point as he’s not in communion with Rome.

I don't believe Joe has been formally excommunicated by anyone. There was a discussion not too long ago about Biden being told he could not receive communion by a bishop, but that's not a formal excommunication just a pastoral decision. Otherwise any sinner who hadn't gone to the confessional would be "excommunicated."

Perhaps he's done something that merits automatic excommunication, but that would have to be adjudicated. And I don't see how he could, unless you count "officially endorsing abortion" as "being an accomplice to people procuring completed abortions" which I don't see how that would make sense.

Technically, the figure responsible for excommunicating Joe Biden would be Wilton Cardinal Gregory, who was probably appointed archbishop of DC in part because he wouldn’t do something like that.

Wilton Cardinal Gregory

Is that a formal style of name?

Yes. Cardinals are referred to in the third person as ‘Christian name cardinal family name’, except for a few eastern rite figures like the Maronite patriarch. It would also be fairly normal to call him ‘Cardinal Gregory, archbishop of Washington’.

Yes, but not a universal one.

There’s no way the Pope would excommunicate arguably the world’s most powerful Catholic (other than or perhaps even including himself) even if he had done something to warrant it.

This is a recent pussification of the Church. The last Head of State to be excommunicated was Tito in 1946 (for ordering the show trial of a Catholic bishop) and the previous one was King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy in 1870 for invading Rome.

The last time "arguably the world's most powerful Catholic" was excommunicated was Napoleon in 1809 (also for invading Italy).

In the Middle Ages royal excommunications were commonplace, but if the criterion of "arguably the world's most powerful Catholic" is used then we have Holy Roman Emperors Otto IV in 1210 (invading Italy again), Frederick II (three times: for promising to go on Crusade and not doing so, for invading Italy, and for obstructing the Pope's attempt to lead Christian Europe's response to the Mongols), and Henry IV and Henry V (multiple times over the Investiture Controversy - in effect for claiming the authority to appoint bishops in the Holy Roman Empire in place of the Pope).

So basically what you're saying is that as long as Biden doesn't invade Italy or try to appoint bishops, he's going to be fine.

Were Donald Trump Catholic, I suspect he would be more likely to be excommunicated for promising to launch a crusade and not doing so. My understanding of the precedents is that "Congress wouldn't support it" is not an excuse and "You should have taken by calls for war against the infidel seriously but not literally" certainly isn't.

The Papacy couldn't even crush SSPX in 1988.

swole_doge_vs_cheems.jpg

But they did excommunicate the SSPX leadership after the Econe consecrations - schismatic consecrations are still one of the reliable ways of getting excommunicated - or technically given the law around latae sententiae, of excommunicating yourself in a way the Vatican will wish to publicise.

You will notice that most of the historical exommunications I mentioned didn't succeed in crushing anyone - the practice of unrepentant excommunicants thumbing their nose at the Papacy is as old as the practice of excommunicating people.

Mexico's federal government does not have full territorial control of the country, so I'm not sure to what extent half-assed attempts at socialism can really cock things up. The upper-middle income industrial north in particular doesn't like taking orders from the DF very much; it'll be interesting if they start really pushing back on federal authority.

You think the cartels provide better governance than Morena? Or is there some other group which contests the central government?

I think the cartels weaken the federal government's ability to impose its will on states which don't want to go along with it. I do not think they provide governance better than, say, ISIS.

A well known benefit of living in a failed state is the ability to just say no when the central government wants something. I seriously doubt Mexico has the state capacity to enact major structural economic reforms, positive or negative.

Sheinbaum is from the same political party that has been running Mexico - AMLO.

"AMLO" is the nickname of the outgoing president, López Obrador. Reuters says that the party is Morena (which, admittedly, was founded by López Obrador).

Super-majorities in Congress that will be able to pass whatever they want.

Reuters says that Morena's coalition has achieved a supermajority only in the lower house, and is "a few seats short" in the upper house.

I am seeing a 2/3 majority in Senate with center-left Movimiento Ciudadano so I guess that makes them the potential blocking party and have no idea on who they are.

"AMLO" is the nickname of the outgoing president, López Obrador. Reuters says that the party is Morena (which, admittedly, was founded by López Obrador).

Wait, I'm confused. So she started in the social democrat party, then moved to the current president's center-left party? So this election was between two candidates in the same party?

edit: nm, i'm wrong. Mexico has term limits, so the current president wasn't running.

Yes, it’s a one, six year term limit.

so if she does have leftist instincts

Her previous political party was El Partido de la Revolución Democrática ("The Party of the Democratic Revolution"). Latin America continues to mostly think Communism is a great idea, no matter how often it screws things up.

Latin America continues to mostly think Communism is a great idea, no matter how often it screws things up.

Well Munro doctrine has its second order effects.

Believe it or not, there is agency outside the United States.

US devotes serious amounts of resources to make sure that doesn't stick, with notable examples such as the Ukraine War, where agency of France and Germany - they were empathically against promising 'Ukraine in NATO eventually' was overriden, the promise was made.

Then you had Maidan, which was as if J6 took months and featured cameos by high-profile Russian & Chinese politicians showing up cheering it on. Of course it ended with a shootout which, according to Ukraine court, was started by a Right Sector militia firing at both cops and protesters.

I agree that other countries have some agency, but there is a long history of US-backed regime change in Latin America. That can have chilling effects on any government that wants to do something the US won't like.

The United States may have a much more "hands off" form of imperialism, but it is historically willing and able to turn a country into a basket case if it furthers its economic interests. This limits the live options available to countries in Latin America, even if they still have agency within that limited set of options.

I agree that other countries have some agency, but there is a long history of US-backed regime change in Latin America. That can have chilling effects on any government that wants to do something the US won't like.

On a historical front, your long history of US-backed regime change is predominately the Cold War, when Latin America underwent a number of civil wars, with coups and attempted coups by various factions. If there is to be a chilling effect here, it would be because everything is chilling, not because the Americans are uniquely so.

More to the point, your list is anachronistic. There's a reason that only two cited events are after 1980, with one of them being the Panama invasion against a person who had functionally couped the Panamanian government, and the other being that time when the modern Venezuelan government ousted its own opposition-led legislature (which did not, in fact, involve a coup). This is neither a particularly long history, except by the short-history paradigm of Americans, nor is it particularly recent history, and the parts that are recent don't particularly mesh with the narrative of the past history. It does, however, miss all the other sorts of oustings / coups / palace maneuverings, which would be relevant to determine how much of something is a relatively important factor versus not.

On the agency-front, your framing is demonstrating the issue Nybbler was raising. Simply calling something like the Cold War military coups US-backed regime change is a framing device to re-characterize what would normally just be recognized as a internal government coup- which Latin America has had a history of without American involvement. While it fits a narrative, since it can imply that the coup governments wouldn't have occurred / wouldn't have been successful / wouldn't have done as they did without the Americans, this obscures rather than addresses the point that the post-WW2 Latin America had a number of civil wars and active insurgencies going on, for reasons the Americans were not responsible for, and that the Latin American governments have had a history of government instability- i.e. regime change- both before and after the American moment.

While Latin American nationalism, especially of the leftist slant, does like to rally against the Yankees, it doesn't really address that large parts of Latin American countries were willing to kill eachother, and that willingness or ability didn't come from the Americans.

The United States may have a much more "hands off" form of imperialism, but it is historically willing and able to turn a country into a basket case if it furthers its economic interests. This limits the live options available to countries in Latin America, even if they still have agency within that limited set of options.

This cultural chauvenism denies due credit to all the Latin Americans, who have a long and well established historical and contemporary records of turning regional countries into breadbaskets basket cases in further of personal or ideological interests, without needing the assistance of the Americans to do so and often in direct opposition to the yankees.

Down with Yankee-centricism! Give the Latinos their credit!

That can have chilling effects on any government that wants to do something the US won't like.

Apparently not, since the US has famously not been fond of Communism and Latin America loves it.

Chilling effects don't mean no one will ever do something. When people talk about "chilling effects" on free speech, they're not saying literally zero people will speak their mind, just that fewer will speak their mind than would have without the chilling effects.

There are plenty of examples like the US orchestrated 1954 coup against President Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala, the 1973 coup against President Salvador Allende in Chile, the backing of the Contras against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the 1980s, and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba in 1961. Any Latin American government wanting to be and remain socialist, not only had the challenge of propping up a socialist government but also of resisting US plots, and very few had resources to do both.

Add in the use of Structural Adjustment Programs by the IMF and World Bank, as a means of insuring liberalization of trade and privatization in countries that wanted loans, and you have a recipe where the number of live options for most Latin American countries were quite small. So yes, they had agency, but it was very much constrained by the circumstances of international relations.

We're not talking about "literally zero"; we're talking about a Latin American affinity for Communism. Claiming that this is due to the US's policies, as @Lizzardspawn did, is what I am objecting to. Your proposed mechanism for the US affecting Latin American countries would tend to result in a reduction in affinity of Latin American countries for Communism, not an increase.

I was saying that there is state level distrust of oxygen in Latin America if US is breathing it. Unfortunately US is somewhat competent at managing an economy so the good economic ideas are tainted by default.

More comments

I noticed the crash today also. But if you zoom out, you see the Mexican market trades at roughly the same level it did in November, so it's not really that big of a dip.

Zoom out further, and you'll see that, like most international markets, Mexico has limped along since 2007, trading mostly flat since then.

I trust the Mexican stock market about as much as I do the Chinese, Brazilian, or Colombian markets. Which is to say: not at all. I'll invest, but companies need to SHOW ME THE MONEY in terms of dividends and buybacks. Of course, socialists are always making things tough for companies who wish to reward shareholders. They don't want to see precious dollar reserves leaving the country and will often interfere to force companies to "reinvest" rather than make payments. Both Xi in China and Lula in Brazil have personally intervened in this way recently, tanking share prices.

Like most LatAm countries, Mexico seems set up for immense success if they can only kick the socialism habit which periodically sets them back by decades. With a near supermajority for AMLO's successor, it would appear that Mexico could once again belong to a leftist uniparty. The last one ruled for 71 years. I wouldn't be bullish on their stock market.

Can you explain why is it beneficial to a country for foreigners to buy up their companies? Also I understand investing when you give the company money either for a loan or to buy their shares directly, but how is "after-market" public trading of stocks with other owners "investing" (in the sense of something beneficial to the country/company)?

(I'm asking as an ignoramus I'm not making a point.)

It depends on the price and what the sellers do with the money.

Perhaps the local capitalists have inside knowledge that bad times are coming and manage to sell at a high price before that knowledge spreads abroad. This is a leading indicator of things going wrong.

Or perhaps local capitalists have inside knowledge of better opportunities in Mexico. How will they raise capital? They can sell mature companies that they have built up earlier and invest in new companies with better growth prospects. This is a leading indicator of things going right and directly beneficial to Mexico.

We probably do have excess trading versus what would be efficient for the economy. People like the game.

But a person doing direct investing in something producing cash flows for 50-100 years probably doesn’t actually want to be invested in that thing for 50-100 years.

I’ve always like the idea that public companies are like a report card for companies. Having to constantly convince people to own your stock makes companies perform better. How many people learn calculus because they opened a book versus they had a deadline to take a test? And then public markets do provide a means of changing management if the assets get cheap but the company isn’t making appropriate profits.

I’ve always like the idea that public companies are like a report card for companies. Having to constantly convince people to own your stock makes companies perform better. How many people learn calculus because they opened a book versus they had a deadline to take a test? And then public markets do provide a means of changing management if the assets get cheap but the company isn’t making appropriate profits.

Sure, but having the owners and managers be the same people also greatly increases the incentives for the managers to do a good job. Private owners have much more information about the company and a much more direct way of effecting change. The private owners can always just sell the company if they think they can't do a good job of managing it or picking managers.

The main advantage publicly owned companies have isn't better management, it's just the ability to raise capital. Something that can matter a lot in capital intensive industries with only a few large companies.

Agree it’s primary about raising larger amounts of capital. The system does have means to incentivize management in public companies so trading in stocks does still have a purpose.

For larger companies you could actually have a debate on whether the management incentives are better being private or public. I would probably start with something like for more complex orgs the wisdom of crowds is smarter than one owner etc. Price signals from markets interpret information faster than a small group of owners.

A couple of reasons that countries might want to let foreigners own stocks:

  1. IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). These allow companies to raise money to invest. Or, more likely, the possibility of an IPO gives early investors a reason to invest, knowing they can cash out later.

  2. Raising money via equity sales. Companies frequently sell shares to raise money or to pay employees with stock grants. If foreigners can invest, then stock prices will be higher, and they can raise more.

The failure mode for a lot of countries (like China) is that they want it both ways. They want the investor money, but then they don't want to actually pay the investors when profits happen. Then all the investor money dries up. Take a look at the price of top Chinese companies like $BABA. They are in the toilet.

But this happens in a lot of countries, even developed ones. Governments will change the rules when anyone starts making money. To invert the saying, many governments want to privatize losses but socialize profits. Obviously there is not a lot of sympathy for the foreign investor class.

Nasdaq went 14 years without a new high. It’s not uncommon for a market to have droughts of that long usually going from high valuations to lower valuations while still having internal growth. And then doing a new cycle to high valuations. Also I am not positive on what was in the index back then but I would guess a lot of mining and banking back then. Today it’s 30% consumer defensive. It traded 9-10 today. Mining and banking have sucked in any country. Change in industry composition within the index is likely.

I did try to leave it open ended. I was rather confused when I saw it down 10% today. Admittedly, the politics look a little scary for investors here. 10 pe with the U.S. booming and a real desire by U.S. corporations to near shore is my counter.

Mining and banking have sucked in any country.

Yeah, most developing countries only have 3 kinds of stocks: banks, resource extraction, and telecom.

Today it’s 30% consumer defensive.

In light of my above comment, that's interesting. Do you have a favorite Mexican stock?

Looks like it’s still 50% materials, banks, and telecom but I bet that is still down a ton. Often it’s 100%.

I only looked today because it was interesting. My guess is if you bought today or tomorrow on election news and you bet that she won’t be a crazy commie and are right you probably get something like a 30% 1 year return. 10-12% discount from the election. I am seeing 10-12% expected earnings growth. And if the market rerates to she is a reasonable person you probably get 1-2 turns in valuation gains from pre-election. Maybe lose a little on the currency since I am guess they have higher inflation. Of course her political bias are not mine but today they priced in she could be dangerous. I do not know if she is dangerous.

On Twitter today is the day people are asking questions. There should be people answer questions in the next few days.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats