nhaliday + gilens-page   21

Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite
- Huntington, 2004

https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/889953571650891776

The views of the general public on issues of national identity differ significantly from those of many elites. The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability--within acceptable conditions for evolution--of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting American values abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism.

...

Estimated to number about 20 million in 2000, of whom 40 percent were American, this elite is expected to double in size by 2010. Comprising fewer than 4 percent of the American people, these transnationalists have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite's global operations. In the coming years, one corporation executive confidently predicted, "the only people who will care about national boundaries are politicians."

...

In August 1804, Walter Scott finished writing The Lay of the Last Minstrel. Therein, he
asked whether

"Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said:
'This is my own, my native Land?'
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned
As home his footsteps he hath turned, . . .
From wandering on a foreign strand?"

A contemporary answer to Scott's question is: Yes, the number of dead souls is small
but growing among America's business, professional, intellectual and academic elites.
pdf  essay  rhetoric  huntington  big-peeps  statesmen  org:davos  nationalism-globalism  migration  identity-politics  culture-war  vampire-squid  elite  world  universalism-particularism  politics  ideology  morality  s:*  attaq  corporation  economics  efficiency  trade  government  usa  westminster  crooked  🎩  polisci  foreign-policy  anglosphere  multi  twitter  social  commentary  gnon  unaffiliated  right-wing  quotes  track-record  poetry  old-anglo  aristos  aphorism  duty  hate  meta:rhetoric  poll  values  polarization  clinton  gilens-page  trust  cohesion  institutions  academia  higher-ed  california  the-west  class  class-warfare  trends  wonkish  great-powers  democracy  latin-america  islam  MENA  conquest-empire  rot  zeitgeist  civic  religion  christianity  theos  anomie  history  mostly-modern  early-modern  pre-ww2  culture  britain  tradition  prejudice  madisonian  domestication  nascent-state  tribalism  us-them  interests  impetus  decentralized  reason  protestant-catholic  the-bones  the-founding  heterodox 
july 2017 by nhaliday
Tyler Cowen on Brexit, Steven Pinker, and Joseph McCarthy | askblog
Also, in my other post today, I mention an event on plutocracy co-sponsored by the Hudson Institute and The American Interest. Tyler Cowen makes remarks that have little or nothing to do with the article that he wrote for the event. Two of his more provocative opinions:

1. Steven Pinker may be wrong. Rather than mass violence following a benign trend, it could be cyclical. When there is a long peace, people become complacent, they allow bad leaders to take power and to run amok, and you get mass violence again. (Cowen argues that there are more countries now run by bad people than was the case a couple of decades ago)

2. Joseph McCarthy was not wrong. There were Soviet agents in influential positions. Regardless of what you think of that, the relevant point is that today Chinese and Russian plutocrats may have their tentacles in the U.S. and may be subtly causing the U.S. to be less of a liberal capitalist nation and more of a cronyist plutocracy.

hmm, the USPS stuff here: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:fc443b256b1a
econotariat  cracker-econ  commentary  marginal-rev  video  presentation  summary  straussian  contrarianism  rhetoric  pinker  peace-violence  cycles  oscillation  flexibility  leadership  government  history  mostly-modern  cold-war  china  asia  russia  communism  inequality  winner-take-all  authoritarianism  antidemos  corruption  anomie  domestication  gilens-page  n-factor  individualism-collectivism  egalitarianism-hierarchy  madisonian  democracy  rot  zeitgeist  the-bones  counter-revolution  flux-stasis  kumbaya-kult  virginia-DC  class-warfare  rent-seeking  vampire-squid  trump  current-events  news  org:rec  amazon  market-power  media  propaganda  taxes  corporation  capital 
june 2017 by nhaliday
Liberalism's Future by R. R. Reno | Articles | First Things
The survey was designed to expose two ranges of preferences. The first concerns how individuals rank their self-interest as compared to the interests of others. A fair-minded person sees them as equal. A selfish person is more likely to prefer his own interests. An “intermediate” person (the term the research paper uses) falls in between. The second preference concerns the relative importance of equality as compared to efficiency. A person who favors equality is willing to accept lower efficiency, while those who favor efficiency focus on growing the pie rather than cutting it evenly.

About half the Yale Law students are intermediates, people who give themselves a bit of a preference. The other half tilts strongly in the direction of the selfish. When it comes to equality or efficiency, which is to say, pie growing, the Yale Law students overwhelmingly opt for the latter.

To illuminate these results, the researchers did some comparative work. They mined data about under­graduates from the University of California at Berkeley. Then they looked at Americans in general.

The comparative results are fascinating. Under­graduates at the University of California at Berkeley tilt even more strongly in the selfish direction than the Yale Law students. They’re also efficiency-focused, though less so. The general population, by contrast, shows markedly different preferences. They’re significantly more likely to be fair-minded than selfish. They’re also more likely to favor cutting the pie equally rather than emphasizing efficiency to grow the pie.

...

The remarkable preference for efficiency we see in the overwhelmingly Democratic student body at Yale Law School also sheds light on today’s progressive priorities, which focus on identity politics, especially sexual identity. Gay rights are favored by rich liberals in large part because they’re seen as a cost-free way toward greater equality. There are lots of well-educated gays and les­bians who look, act, and think just like other elites. Sexual ­orientation “diversity” requires no bending of meritocratic rules, no set-asides, and no expensive, large-scale government programs.

...

I regret that places like Yale now use young people in such transparent ways: minorities bring “diversity,” rich kids keep the money flowing, foreign students facilitate the formation of a new global network, and meritocratic winners ensure “excellence.” There’s something intrinsically ugly about engineered “communities,” especially ones engineered for the purpose of maintaining and extending power. (Why would anyone concerned about the future of our society give money to these universities?)

So I wish Yale President Peter Salovey the worst. May the universities continue on their trajectory toward becoming rigid, mechanical, and artificial communities dominated by rent-seeking faculty, populated by alienated students, and governed by feckless administrators. Such institutions cannot attract loyalty, and they cannot create a culture for the future.

https://spottedtoad.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/chris-eisgruber-and-the-inversion-of-power/
In some ways, this is a natural evolution of the increasing importance that racial inclusion has taken on in academic environments. Since the civil rights movement, racial inclusion has in the United States been the central measure of whether an institution has stood by its ethical commitments. Universities and academics were, more than any other institutions, the ones that pursued and promoted that measure of legitimacy, as it was meanwhile incorporated into law in the form of disparate impact legislation and a large portion of federal regulations; clearly their commitment to that ideology extends beyond affirmative action in admissions. Universities seemingly sincerely believe that their role in the world would diminish if they were seen to be non-inclusive institutions. (Seen to be is perhaps the operative term here, since visible diversity is what is most important.) When that ideology turns against the institution itself, what can a college president do but bow before it?

But there probably is still one more source of the inversion of power. Colleges and Universities garner an increasing portion of their donations not from the ordinary millionaires of old, but from the mega-rich created by our New Gilded Age. While the merely rich probably swing conservative in their political beliefs, this is not at all clear of the very richest people in the world; Carlos Slim, for example, #2 on the 2014 list, is the largest shareholder in the New York Times whose editorial board endorsed the protesters, and speakers aligned with the Black Lives Matters protests are have been regular guests at Aspen Ideas, Davos, and similar gatherings of the global rich. Whether Eisgruber is bowing before an impassioned undergraduate– or before the Davos Set’s priorities– is hard to know.
news  org:mag  org:ngo  letters  douthatish  essay  right-wing  rhetoric  inequality  winner-take-all  nl-and-so-can-you  westminster  managerial-state  culture-war  madisonian  trends  ideology  politics  polisci  wonkish  history  mostly-modern  usa  culture  society  sociology  efficiency  class  nascent-state  poll  values  higher-ed  elite  gender  propaganda  anomie  technocracy  institutions  chart  diversity  civic  philosophy  meaningness  critique  religion  christianity  protestant-catholic  gilens-page  egalitarianism-hierarchy  redistribution  roots  policy  realness  cohesion  2016  commentary  multi  capitalism  coming-apart  dark-arts  optimate  noblesse-oblige  scale  nationalism-globalism  nietzschean  vampire-squid  malaise  nihil  theos  zeitgeist  the-bones  identity-politics  counter-revolution  modernity  class-warfare  ratty  unaffiliated  current-events  power  charity  envy  org:davos  homo-hetero  study  summary  comparison  self-interest  interests  org:theos 
april 2017 by nhaliday
After Xi Leaves U.S., Chinese Media Assail Strike on Syria - The New York Times
But Chinese analysts, whose advice is sometimes sought by the government on foreign policy questions, were scornful of the strike, which they viewed as a powerful country attacking a nation unable to fight back. And they rejected what they viewed as an unspoken American message equating Syria, which has no nuclear arsenal, with North Korea, which has carried out five nuclear arms tests and hopes to mount a nuclear warhead on an intercontinental missile.

“I don’t deny that the United States is capable of such an attack against North Korea, but you need to see that North Korea is capable of striking back,” said Lu Chao, director of the Border Studies Institute at the Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences. “That would create chaos.”

If Syria had nuclear weapons, the United States would not dare attack it, said Shen Dingli, a professor of international relations at Fudan University in Shanghai. “Chemical weapons and nuclear weapons are totally different,” Mr. Shen said. “A chemical bomb kills dozens of people, and the atomic bomb at Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands.”

Mr. Shen added that many Chinese were “thrilled” by the attack because it would probably result in the United States becoming further mired in the Middle East.

“If the United States gets trapped in Syria, how can Trump make America great again? As a result, China will be able to achieve its peaceful rise,” Mr. Shen said, using a term Beijing employs to characterize its growing power. “Even though we say we oppose the bombing, deep in our hearts we are happy.”

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/07/what-trump-calls-strength-china-calls-stupidity-xi-jinping-summit-syria-strikes/
https://apnews.com/a01d0cf576e047248bc20439314f7481
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/850806960526176256
🤔
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-the-syria-airstrikes.html
jfc, that was fast: https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/850089008990494720
news  org:rec  trump  politics  foreign-policy  realpolitik  iraq-syria  MENA  china  expansionism  biotech  arms  asia  current-events  thucydides  multi  org:lite  wtf  -_-  media  westminster  managerial-state  war  language  clown-world  org:mag  org:foreign  government  twitter  social  commentary  links  data  analysis  institutions  hmm  list  wonkish  polisci  madisonian  anomie  neocons  2016-election  2017  gilens-page 
april 2017 by nhaliday
Anonymous Mugwump: The Empirics of Free Speech and Realistic Idealism: Part II
1. News Media: Murdoch and the Purple Land
2. The Effects of Money and Lobbying in Politics
3. Video Games: Crash Bandicoot Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theatre
4. Porn: Having an Orgasm in a Crowded Theatre
5. Sexist Speech: Crash Bandicoot Making Rape Jokes in a Crowded Theatre
6. Race Related Speech: Hollywood, Skokie and Umugandas in Rwanda
7. Incitement, Obedience and Speech Act Theory: Eichmann to Jihadi Twitter
8. Conclusion: Epistemic Humility

...

Here is what I am seeking to show in the next few paragraphs:
1. Corporate ownership of the media does not lead to corporate-friendly media output arising from a conflict of interest.
2. The main driver of media output is consumer demand (i.e., people read what they already agree with) as the above extract indicates.
3. This could create a new negative effect of a free media: people living in a bubble where their views are reinforced by an uninformative partisan press.
4. I do not believe this bubble exists: reputational effects and consumer demand for truth rather than reinforcement of existing beliefs means that the partisan media does not, uniformly or consistently, distort the truth.

...

For clarity: my primary argument is that things like campaign contributions and lobbying don’t matter. But, in deference to how mixed the literature is, I would say that our aversion to interest groups is misguided. Whether it’s Save the Children campaigning for minimum levels of aid or Citigroup lobbying for certain legislation, we needn’t jump to accusations of corruption or cronyism. Democratic politics is about legislators listening, being persuaded in a marketplace of ideas – and it really doesn’t matter if the person putting forward that idea is Exxon Mobil or a constituent. The burden for suggesting that there is impropriety is necessarily high and I simply haven’t seen any convincing evidence that there is necessarily or mostly a link between money, lobbying, politics and impropriety.

...

[some stuff on video games, porn, sexism, and racial hate speech]

[this is pretty crazy:]
In essence, ‘learning from the peasant ideology… and the everyday propaganda during umuganda had also motivated people to see their fellow ba-Tutsi as enemies’ in the run up the genocide. When the genocide finally hit, umugandas were used more directly in the genocide:

During the genocide, umuganda did not involve planting trees but ‘clearing out the weeds’ – a phrase used by the genocidaires to mean the killing of Tutsis. Chopping up men was referred to as ‘bush clearing’ and slaughtering women and children as ‘pulling out the roots of the bad weeds’... The slogan, ‘clearing bushes and removing bad weeds’, were familiar terms used in the course of ordinary agricultural labour undertaken in umuganda.

...

One more Saturday with rainfall above 10mm corresponds to a 0.41 percentage point reduction in the civilian participation rate. Those who wish to stop curtail certain forms of hate speech might very easily rely on studies like this. But there is an even better study which they can rely on in doing so: RTLM was the radio station in Rwanda and much like the umugandas: referring to Tutsis as cockroaches and dirty.

Bowling for Fascism: Social Capital and the Rise of the Nazi Party: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19201
Towns with one standard deviation higher association density saw at least 15% faster Nazi Party entry. All types of societies – from veteran associations to animal breeders, chess clubs and choirs – positively predict NS Party entry.

White, middle-class social capital helps to incarcerate African-Americans in racially diverse states.: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/09/22/white-middle-class-social-capital-helps-to-incarcerate-african-americans-in-racially-diverse-states/
Social capital is mostly seen as a ‘good’: bringing communities together and, in the case of criminal justice, encouraging social empathy which can lead to less harsh sentencing. But these analyses ignore racial divisions in social capital. In new research, Daniel Hawes finds that while social capital can reduce the Black-White disparity in incarceration rates in states with few African Americans, in states with greater numbers of African Americans, perceptions of racial threat can activate social capital in white communities, leading to greater targeting, profiling and arrests for minorities.
albion  analysis  essay  meta-analysis  study  summary  list  empirical  civil-liberty  media  institutions  roots  business  info-dynamics  endo-exo  religion  natural-experiment  polisci  politics  wonkish  propaganda  nl-and-so-can-you  epistemic  supply-demand  🎩  spock  nitty-gritty  history  early-modern  usa  britain  MENA  unaffiliated  scale  incentives  market-power  competition  piketty  inequality  government  elections  money  null-result  stylized-facts  polarization  distribution  data  visualization  poll  gilens-page  coalitions  foreign-policy  realpolitik  israel  neocons  iran  nuclear  managerial-state  regularizer  policy  games  crime  sex  gender  discrimination  biodet  variance-components  behavioral-gen  race  diversity  africa  stories  death  social-capital  europe  woah  unintended-consequences  h2o  community  internet  terrorism  correlation  tv  tradeoffs  optimism  intervention  faq  putnam-like  madisonian  chart  article  exit-voice  microfoundations  germanic  mostly-modern  world-war  multi  economics  fluid  cliometrics  news  org:ngo 
april 2017 by nhaliday
I Don’t Think it Means What You Think it Means – spottedtoad
Clearly, there’s a “How a Bill Becomes a Law” quality about all of this; now that Congress is more-or-less a vestigial organ of government and almost all policymaking is done by the Executive Branch, contained intermittently by the courts, carried out by contractors, and acting on plans conceived largely by think tanks and academia, how much democratic accountability do we even expect?

There’s something irritating as well, of course, about newspapers acquiring breathless naivete about the influence of institutions they’ve spent decades decrying. Much like the “new-found respect” for the CIA or for George W. Bush, it leads one to suspect that either they are the world’s worst liars, or as Obama’s adviser Ben Rhodes bragged to the Times last year, “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
ratty  unaffiliated  commentary  news  org:rec  government  power  usa  network-structure  technocracy  military  media  westminster  critique  politics  trump  intel  managerial-state  social-structure  social-choice  slippery-slope  democracy  civic  malaise  current-events  gilens-page  info-dynamics  madisonian  vampire-squid  chart  obama  anarcho-tyranny  propaganda 
march 2017 by nhaliday
What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration? | Chatham House
- majority of population wants complete moratorium
- 48% of college graduates as well
- 44% for 18-29
- UK and Spain the only ones <50% overall
- no Scandinavian countries surveyed

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/07/11/europeans-fear-wave-of-refugees-will-mean-more-terrorism-fewer-jobs/
Relatively few Europeans believe diversity has a positive impact on their countries. At 36%, Sweden registers the highest percentage that believes an increasingly diverse society makes their country a better place to live. In many countries, the prevailing view is that diversity makes no difference in the quality of life.

https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/looking-to-germany-to-protect-the-world-order-779939
fundamental incompatibility >50% in Germany, etc.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2017-06-20-future-europe-attitudes-raines-goodwin-cutts-final.pdf
ridiculously out-of-touch
https://necpluribusimpar.net/publicelite-divide-immigration/
It’s as if people in the elite were mostly protected from the bad consequences of immigration, but not from its benefits, while the opposite were true for most people in the public… (A study showed a similar phenomenon in the US, although there is less opposition to immigration overall here, which is not saying much given how much opposition there is to immigration in Europe.) What is really striking is that, on every single point raised in that poll, people in the public are right and people in the elite are wrong. At least, they are if we’re talking about the immigration of poor, unskilled and non-Western people, but this is what people have in mind when they complain about immigration. In fact, not only is the public right, but it’s obviously right.

Of course, the sophisticates don’t know that, because they haven’t actually read the literature which they claim shows the public is mistaken about immigration. So they ascribe the hostility to immigration among the public, which is off the charts, to bigotry and ignorance. As soon as I have more time, which probably won’t be until a few months from now, I plan to publish a series of very detailed posts in which I discuss the literature on the effects of immigration in the West. In the meantime, if you are convinced that the elite is right and that immigration is great for Europe, you should ask yourself why, if members of the elite are right, they have to lie all the time about this. For instance, you should ask yourself why, if immigration really doesn’t make crime worse, the French government under Jospin gave instructions to the police not to release any names when communicating to the press or why journalists systematically replace non-French names by French names when they write on crime. Similarly, you could ask yourself why both the authorities and the media covered up the sexual assaults perpetrated by migrants in Cologne and many other cities throughout Europe in 2016, before the truth finally came out. If these were isolated incidents, you couldn’t conclude much from them, but the cover-up is systematic. Maybe it’s just me, but when I think what I’m saying is true, I don’t have to lie about it.

https://twitter.com/phl43/status/889570666327965704
https://necpluribusimpar.net/quick-look-immigration-crime-germany/
Of course, this is not surprising in the least, what is surprising is that so many people were stupid enough as to think it wasn’t going to happen. But the most amazing thing is that you can be certain that, despite this fiasco, the sophisticates will continue to treat anyone who voice skepticism about the benefits of mass immigration in Europe as a bigoted cretin. To be convinced of your intellectual and moral superiority when you are making claims that are manifestly absurd is perhaps the worst kind of stupidity.

lawlz from NYT: https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/884829474445029376

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/the-public-vs-the-politicians/

ick source but whatever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SE6x_I7yYE
'I would do it again’ Defiant Merkel has no regrets about opening Germany’s borders: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/846397/german-election-2017-angela-merkel-migrants-germany-borders

https://www.ft.com/content/23e02b76-7074-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9
A recent poll by the University of Mainz, cited in the study, found that 55 per cent of those asked felt “systematically lied to by the media”. Some 26 per cent agreed with the statement that “the media and politicians work hand in hand to manipulate public opinion”.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fpolitik%2Fdeutschland%2Farticle167673517%2F7-von-10-Deutschen-wollen-Mittelmeerfluechtlinge-zurueckschicken.html&edit-text=&act=url
7 out of 10 Germans want to send Mediterranean refugees back
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fpolitik%2Fdeutschland%2Farticle168016985%2FGrosse-Mehrheit-findet-Muslime-in-Deutschland-schlecht-integriert.html&edit-text=&act=url
Despite this strong connection, a large majority of the Germans sees the Muslim immigrants here as badly integrated. 65.6 percent of the Germans would generally call Muslim immigrants in Germany as rather poor or very badly integrated. This was the result of the WELT-Trend, a representative survey which was exclusively made by the opinion research institute Civey.

Tribes of Europe: https://tribes.chathamhouse.org/the-tribes

Australia and Muslim ban: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/half-of-all-australians-want-to-ban-muslim-immigration-poll-20160920-grkufa.html
Report: Voters Say Country Is Full, Support Partial Muslim Immigration Ban: http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/10/26/report-voters-say-country-full-support-muslim-immigration-ban/
New Zealand's Refugee Policy is Closer to Trump's 'Muslim Ban' Than You Might Think: https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/aej3aj/is-new-zealands-refugee-policy-closer-to-trumps-muslim-ban-than-you-think
news  org:anglo  data  poll  policy  migrant-crisis  migration  islam  MENA  demographics  europe  EU  britain  gilens-page  mediterranean  gallic  germanic  eastern-europe  org:ngo  values  crosstab  current-events  nationalism-globalism  assimilation  zeitgeist  multi  terrorism  descriptive  org:euro  pdf  analysis  class  elite  vampire-squid  redistribution  welfare-state  crime  culture-war  westminster  white-paper  social  video  lurid  censorship  culture  org:mag  journos-pundits  neocons  unaffiliated  right-wing  propaganda  media  twitter  discussion  org:rec  org:biz  crooked  criminology  commentary  gnon  org:data  diversity  putnam-like  judaism  civic  universalism-particularism  nordic  database  chart  anglo  statesmen  🎩  attaq  wonkish  org:lite  counter-revolution  track-record  africa  exploratory  list  maps  visualization  politics  polisci  coalitions  ideology  phalanges  urban-rural  sentiment 
february 2017 by nhaliday
Peter Turchin Elite Collusion or Competition? - Peter Turchin
more comments https://pseudoerasmus.com/2014/04/13/anonimo/#comment-42887
http://evonomics.com/science-predicting-rise-fall-societies-turchin/
https://twitter.com/kmichaelwilson/status/875108634870534144
interesting discussion of gilens-page: https://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/how-inequality-corrodes-cooperation-new-experimental-evidence/
This is not accurate. It is true Gilens shows that when the policy preferences of the rich diverge from the rest, the rich do get their way. But as I tried to point out on Twitter, most of the divergence is in matters unrelated to economic or redistributive policies. In fact, the policy preferences of the rich are positively correlated with the policy preferences of the middle and the poor on economics, taxes, and social welfare. The divergence is substantially driven (in Gilens’s analysis) by gun control and environment (see Table 5.5). The rich are more ‘progressive’ on those things.
econotariat  history  cliometrics  class  pseudoE  debate  politics  polisci  turchin  multi  realpolitik  winner-take-all  gilens-page  roots  zero-positive-sum  market-power  competition  elite  managerial-state  sociology  broad-econ  madisonian  chart  rent-seeking  westminster  polarization  crime  inequality  noblesse-oblige  vampire-squid  the-bones  cultural-dynamics  twitter  social  commentary  2016-election  trump  org:sci  org:mag  malaise  stagnation  class-warfare  poast  policy  government  microfoundations  trends  usa  interests  hari-seldon 
january 2017 by nhaliday
Exploring Elitist Democracy: The Latest from Gilens and Page, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
First, middle-class Americans' preferences are highly correlated with rich Americans' preferences - but not interest groups' preferences:

It turns out, in fact, that the preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites (see Table 2.) Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things from government. This bivariate correlation affects how we should interpret our later multivariate findings in terms of "winners" and "losers." It also suggests a reason why serious scholars might keep adhering to both the Majoritarian Electoral Democracy and the Economic Elite Domination theoretical traditions, even if one of them may be dead wrong in terms of causal impact. Ordinary citizens, for example, might often be observed to "win" (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail.

But net interest group stands are not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens. Taking all interest groups together, the index of net interest group alignment correlates only a non-significant .04 with average citizens' preferences! (See Table 2.) This casts grave doubt on David Truman's and others' argument that organized interest groups tend to do a good job of representing the population as a whole. Indeed, as Table 2 indicates, even the net alignments of the groups we have categorized as "mass-based" correlate with average citizens' preferences only at the very modest (though statistically significant) level of .12.

Second, each theory looks good in isolation:

When taken separately, each independent variable - the preferences of average citizens, the preferences of economic elites, and the net alignments of organized interest groups - is strongly, positively, and quite significantly related to policy change. Little wonder that each theoretical tradition has its strong adherents.

Third, average citizens lose almost all apparent influence if you do multiple regression:

These results suggest that reality is best captured by mixed theories in which both individual economic elites and organized interest groups (including corporations, largely owned and controlled by wealthy elites) play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no independent influence.
econotariat  polisci  politics  government  cracker-econ  policy  political-econ  economics  study  summary  realpolitik  gilens-page  🎩  org:econlib  social-structure  democracy  managerial-state  social-choice  stylized-facts  madisonian  chart  antidemos  exit-voice  interests 
november 2016 by nhaliday
political analysis | West Hunter
Just to make things clear, most political reporters are morons, nearly as bad as sports reporters. Mostly ugly cheerleaders for their side, rather than analysts. Uninteresting.

how to analyze polls:

Who ever is ahead in the polls at the time of election is extremely likely to win. Talk about how Candidate X would have a ‘difficult path to 270 electoral votes’ when he’s up 2 points (for example), is pretty much horseshit. There are second-order considerations: you get more oomph per voter when the voter is in a small state, and you also want your votes distributed fairly evenly, so that you win states giving you a majority of electoral votes by a little rather than winning states giving you a minority of electoral votes by huge margins. Not that a candidate can do much about this, of course.

When you hear someone say that it’s really 50 state contests [ more if you think about Maine and Nebraska] , so you should pay attention to the state polls, not the national polls: also horseshit. In some sense, it is true – but when your national polls go up, so do your state polls – almost all of them, in practice. On election day, or just before, you want to consider national polls rather than state polls, because they are almost always more recent, therefore more accurate.

When should you trust an outlier poll, rather than the average: when you want to be wrong.

Money doesn’t help much. Political consultants will tell you that it does, but then they get 15% of ad buys.

A decent political reporter would actually go out and talk to people that aren’t exactly like him. Apparently this no longer happens.

All of these rules have exceptions – but if you understand those [rare] exceptions and can apply them, you’re paying too much attention to politics.
thinking  politics  media  data  street-fighting  poll  contrarianism  len:short  west-hunter  objektbuch  metameta  checklists  sampling-bias  outliers  descriptive  social-choice  gilens-page  elections  scitariat  money  null-result  polisci  incentives  stylized-facts  metabuch  chart  top-n  hi-order-bits  track-record  wonkish  data-science  tetlock  meta:prediction  info-foraging  civic  info-dynamics  interests 
september 2016 by nhaliday
Personnel decision | West Hunter
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/personnel-decision/#comment-83814
I think we are about due for a career civil servant within the agency or relatively recently retired from it (ideally to academia), with a PhD or M.D. and probably a pay grade of either GS-15 or Senior Executive Service (SES), who has a reputation for integrity, for intelligence, and for getting things done bureaucratically, with some low profile political connections (at least to the ruling party but ideally to both political parties) in private life as well (e.g. through friendships made at a top college, a politician or top political aide parent, or friendships made while attending a top D.C. private school like Sidwell Friends or St. Albion’s or National Cathedral School).

Few federal agencies call for more subject-matter competence to understand its functions well enough to run it well.
--
The problem is that the typical member of the set you describe is nuts. Members have a lot of incorrect ideas in their heads: in fact, you have to express support of those ideas or you are expelled. So, that means that every educational improvement plan pushed by the Feds fails: you can’t do anything realistic, or you would be a bad person. Every intervention in the Middle East fails: same reason. AIDs shows up, so we abandon quarantine: Fidel Castro deals with the situation 50 times better than we did.

The Aztecs thought that the world would end if they didn’t keep cutting people’s hearts out on an industrial scale. They were crazy. But were they crazier than we are?
FDA  regulation  discussion  government  rhetoric  commentary  west-hunter  pharma  policy  meta:medicine  scitariat  proposal  counter-revolution  innovation  stagnation  randy-ayndy  trump  2016-election  alt-inst  money  elections  politics  polisci  variance-components  data  corruption  gilens-page  questions  multi  poast  info-dynamics  institutions  elite  ability-competence  truth  westminster  roots  usa  virginia-DC  is-ought  education  MENA  iraq-syria  disease  spreading  gender  sex  sexuality  prudence  ideology  social-science  empirical  evidence-based  religion  judgement 
september 2016 by nhaliday
The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants - Hainmueller - 2014 - American Journal of Political Science - Wiley Online Library
https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/862076519077879808
https://archive.is/worD7
Polls re "increasing"/"decreasing" levels aren't reliable, because normies have no idea how much we currently have. https://cis.org/Camarota/Survey-Highlights-Popularity-Immigration-Enforcement

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/voters-swing-states-support-raise-act
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/pew-us-has-more-immigrants-any-other-country
The report also noted that almost half of Americans (49%) say that immigration in the U.S. should be decreased while only 15% said it should be increased.

also:
- 13.4% foreign-born
- of those, 25% illegal, 44% naturalized, 25% permanent resident
- 1/2 not proficient in English

It's the immigration, stupid: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2015/11/its-immigration-stupid.html
Polling on immigration often appears to be all over the place. Wording is crucial. When the choices are "deport everyone" and "secure the border and then offer a path to citizenship", the Cathedral can manufacture headlines to try and create an illusion of amnesty as a political winner. When the questions are more objectively designed, it becomes clear that restrictionism is the populist position.

Over the summer, Reuters approached the issue in the most straightforward manner I've ever come across. In terms of fleshing out public sentiment, the approach is bar none. Respondents were asked about what should be done with illegal immigrants in the US. Only two committal answers--"deport most or all of them" and "allow most or all of them to stay"--along with a third "unsure" cop-out option, were offered as responses.

World Publics Welcome Global Trade — But Not Immigration: http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-global-trade-but-not-immigration/
In both affluent countries in the West and in the developing world, people are concerned about immigration. Large majorities in nearly every country surveyed express the view that there should be greater restriction of immigration and tighter control of their country’s borders.
study  labor  politics  policy  society  regularizer  usa  gilens-page  poll  migration  proposal  values  managerial-state  nationalism-globalism  chart  multi  twitter  social  commentary  gnon  unaffiliated  right-wing  news  org:ngo  data  latin-america  demographics  language  assimilation  zeitgeist  🎩  attaq  anglo  backup  scale  sampling-bias  knowledge  intricacy  realness  org:data  world  developing-world  white-paper  database  analysis  sentiment 
july 2016 by nhaliday
Perspectives on Politics - Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens - Cambridge Journals Online
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

I think this is the classic study that people usually cite
policy  class  politics  economics  government  study  data  political-econ  polisci  realpolitik  gilens-page  power  🎩  stylized-facts  causation  optimate  variance-components  social-structure  democracy  roots  managerial-state  social-choice  coalitions  madisonian  chart  vampire-squid  antidemos  exit-voice  volo-avolo  interests 
february 2016 by nhaliday

bundles : coordeconguvnorpatterns

related tags

-_-  2016-election  ability-competence  academia  africa  albion  alt-inst  amazon  analysis  anarcho-tyranny  anglo  anglosphere  anomie  antidemos  aphorism  aristos  arms  article  asia  assimilation  attaq  authoritarianism  backup  behavioral-gen  biases  big-peeps  biodet  biotech  britain  broad-econ  business  california  capital  capitalism  causation  censorship  charity  chart  checklists  china  christianity  civic  civil-liberty  clarity  class  class-warfare  clinton  cliometrics  clown-world  coalitions  cohesion  cold-war  coming-apart  commentary  communism  community  comparison  competition  confounding  conquest-empire  contrarianism  corporation  correlation  corruption  cost-benefit  counter-revolution  cracker-econ  crime  criminal-justice  criminology  critique  crooked  crosstab  cultural-dynamics  culture  culture-war  current-events  cycles  dark-arts  data  data-science  database  death  debate  decentralized  democracy  demographics  dependence-independence  descriptive  developing-world  discrimination  discussion  disease  distribution  diversity  domestication  douthatish  duty  early-modern  eastern-europe  econometrics  economics  econotariat  education  efficiency  egalitarianism-hierarchy  elections  elite  empirical  endo-exo  endogenous-exogenous  envy  epistemic  error  essay  ethics  EU  europe  evidence-based  exit-voice  expansionism  exploratory  faq  FDA  flexibility  fluid  flux-stasis  foreign-policy  gallic  games  garett-jones  gender  germanic  gilens-page  gnon  government  great-powers  guide  h2o  hari-seldon  hate  heterodox  hi-order-bits  higher-ed  history  hmm  homo-hetero  howto  hsu  huntington  identity-politics  ideology  impetus  incentives  individualism-collectivism  inequality  info-dynamics  info-foraging  innovation  institutions  intel  interests  internet  intervention  intricacy  iran  iraq-syria  is-ought  islam  israel  japan  journos-pundits  judaism  judgement  knowledge  kumbaya-kult  labor  language  latin-america  leadership  left-wing  len:long  len:short  letters  leviathan  links  list  love-hate  lower-bounds  lurid  madisonian  malaise  managerial-state  maps  marginal-rev  market-power  meaningness  media  mediterranean  MENA  meta-analysis  meta:medicine  meta:prediction  meta:rhetoric  metabuch  metameta  micro  microfoundations  migrant-crisis  migration  military  modernity  money  morality  mostly-modern  multi  n-factor  nascent-state  nationalism-globalism  natural-experiment  neocons  network-structure  news  nietzschean  nihil  nitty-gritty  nl-and-so-can-you  no-go  noblesse-oblige  nordic  nuclear  null-result  obama  objektbuch  old-anglo  optimate  optimism  org:anglo  org:biz  org:data  org:davos  org:econlib  org:edu  org:euro  org:foreign  org:lite  org:mag  org:ngo  org:rec  org:sci  org:theos  organization  organizing  oscillation  outliers  patho-altruism  pdf  peace-violence  phalanges  pharma  philosophy  piketty  pinker  piracy  poast  poetry  polarization  policy  polisci  political-econ  politics  poll  populism  power  pre-ww2  prejudice  presentation  propaganda  proposal  protestant-catholic  prudence  pseudoE  putnam-like  questions  quotes  race  randy-ayndy  rant  ratty  realness  realpolitik  reason  redistribution  regularizer  regulation  religion  rent-seeking  rhetoric  right-wing  roots  rot  russia  s:*  sampling-bias  scale  scitariat  self-interest  sentiment  sex  sexuality  shift  sinosphere  sleuthin  slippery-slope  social  social-capital  social-choice  social-science  social-structure  society  sociology  spearhead  spock  spreading  stagnation  statesmen  stories  straussian  street-fighting  study  stylized-facts  summary  supply-demand  taxes  technocracy  terrorism  tetlock  the-bones  the-founding  the-watchers  the-west  theos  thinking  thucydides  tools  top-n  track-record  trade  tradeoffs  tradition  trends  tribalism  trump  trust  truth  turchin  tv  twitter  unaffiliated  unintended-consequences  universalism-particularism  urban-rural  us-them  usa  values  vampire-squid  variance-components  video  virginia-DC  visualization  volo-avolo  war  welfare-state  west-hunter  westminster  white-paper  winner-take-all  woah  wonkish  world  world-war  wtf  zeitgeist  zero-positive-sum  🎩 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: