3 ms·

Populism is a major problem, and one which is based on unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of the ignorance and prejudice while promissing unrealisting an

Populism is a major problem, and one which is based on unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of the ignorance and prejudice while promissing unrealisting and outright impossible solutions to problems that they missrepresent and even invent. And that has absolutely zero to do with science in general and economic models in particular. Time and again we see populist politicians fanning up the masses with anti-capitalist rhetoric that is absolute bullshit from the start, and they routinely attack economic problems by disregarding basic facts of nature with assertions involving silly conspiracy theories always attributing blame to their political opponents and scapegoats. Every time this happens it does not mean that science failed or that there is a massive conspiracy theory keeping the socialist man down. It just means that disregarding science has serious consequences that no totalitarian regime can quelsh no matter how many gillotines they set up in feont of Goldman-Sachs.

mcguire 8y ago
It is neither ignorant nor prejudiced to notice that your standard of living, and that of your children, have been rather stagnant in recent memory.
- taffer 8y ago
  The ignorant part is blaming Mexicans, Chinese or cyclists when reality is much more complicated than that. Building a wall won't improve healthcare, and insulting diplomatic partners won't return manufacturing jobs.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    A reality being "more complicated" doesn't mean it doesn't have simple constituent parts (kinda like FFT). Our reality is still created by a contribution of several factors, some of which have greater weight, it's not some intangible mass of confusion with no alternative but "business as usual" as the "non-populists" present it. It might not have been Chinese themselves, for example, but it was the outsourcing and migration of industries that left many people without a job (and no real prospect for "re-education" and a new career, at most a crappy lower deal).
coldtea 8y ago
>Populism is a major problem, and one which is based on unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of the ignorance and prejudice while promissing unrealisting and outright impossible solutions to problems that they missrepresent and even invent. Isn't that also what the elites (say, the 10%-ers) have historically also said for realistic and entirely possible solutions (like beheading the King and building a democratic state, or stopping segregation, or extending the vote to women, or adding labor protections, or welfare, and so on), that they felt were beneath them, because they were demanded by the populace and went against their interests as a class? Every modern right has been established by struggles, parties, mass revolts, and so on, deemed "populist", "vulgar", "irresponsible", and "destructive" at the time by those opposing them. Every single one of them.
- pytester 8y ago
  Exactly. Margaret Thatcher epitomized this with her famous catchphrase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative The politburo in the Soviet Union probably employed a similar style of propaganda.
- pas 8y ago
  Pretty big difference between deemed populist by the king and deemed populist by the middle class, by secular opposition to that populism, and so on. That said, you are right, the struggle is real. But it's likely not the 10%, but probably less or a lot more, depending on how you view people who benefit from the status quo. For example anyone who buys a new car, plans a trip, ponders over a job offer, submits an offer on a tender has options to try to rock the boat. Greener, more fair, more just options are usually there - but of course those usually also require some kind of trade off. Do we want something that's good on the long term, or something that's good on the short term? And based on how many options people have and how little they value the long term, the global perspective we could classify them into different kinds of beneficiaries of the status quo. And it's enough for a small cabal of cooperating power brokers to benefit themselves to and unimaginably huge degree. As in significant portion of the world's "income" goes to people who had the option to enrich themselves and took it. Sure, this can be complicated further by looking at those who enriched themselves then proceeded to spend those riches on goals that ultimately help others - but these deviations are usually small, and again, ultimately, can be factored in. However, sometimes beheading kings is contraproductive as you get a civil war. Similarly just adding more voters does not magically lead to a fairer outcome. The classic example is adding more and more cannibals will eventually lead to a bit of a pickle.
AQuantized 8y ago
It relates to economic models insofar as said models are used to justify the persistence of certain inequalities in society. The existence of these inequalities can then be exploited by populists in their rhetoric.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > It relates to economic models insofar as said models are used to justify the persistence of certain inequalities in society. Not quite. Models only explain relationships between parameters. Moreover, inequality is a meaningless concept that is the posterchild of how the goalpost is kept moving by populist politicians. It's meaningless in its definition, as it is kept very maleable to fit the argument, and it's meaningless in the conclusion, as there is no problem in having someome earning more than his neighbor.
bigbaguette 8y ago
Thing is populists tactics wouldn't get as much traction if the prejudice was not as bad, or worsening in the first place. Populism starts as a natural consequence of misery and lack of education, then becomes a cause that keeps reinforcing itself until the guillotine moment. Solving the populism issue means tackling the root issues it feeds from first.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Thing is populists tactics wouldn't get as much traction if the prejudice was not as bad, or worsening in the first place. The problem is that prejudice is also invented and disseminated by these unscrupulous politicians with their populist rhetoric. We see that in any extreme cormer of the political spectrum, whether its anti-capitalist socialists or racial supremacists. History is packed with examples where totalitarian regimes outright negate science to push their absurd populist rhetoric.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Which of the anti-capitalist socialist, racial supremacists, or totalitarians are responsible for the recent drops in life expectancy in the US, out of curiosity? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-life-expectancy-drops-third-year-row-reflecting-rising-drug-overdose-suicide-rates-180970942/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-life-expectancy...
chibg10 8y ago
This is all true. I would also add to this as a cause the trend of media outlets publishing a larger proportion of populist and outrage -driven content than they used to, which I suspect is a reaction to the new attention-driven business models that news outlets rely on these days.

mcguire 8y ago

It is neither ignorant nor prejudiced to notice that your standard of living, and that of your children, have been rather stagnant in recent memory.

taffer 8y ago
The ignorant part is blaming Mexicans, Chinese or cyclists when reality is much more complicated than that. Building a wall won't improve healthcare, and insulting diplomatic partners won't return manufacturing jobs.
- coldtea 8y ago
  A reality being "more complicated" doesn't mean it doesn't have simple constituent parts (kinda like FFT). Our reality is still created by a contribution of several factors, some of which have greater weight, it's not some intangible mass of confusion with no alternative but "business as usual" as the "non-populists" present it. It might not have been Chinese themselves, for example, but it was the outsourcing and migration of industries that left many people without a job (and no real prospect for "re-education" and a new career, at most a crappy lower deal).

coldtea 8y ago

>Populism is a major problem, and one which is based on unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of the ignorance and prejudice while promissing unrealisting and outright impossible solutions to problems that they missrepresent and even invent. Isn't that also what the elites (say, the 10%-ers) have historically also said for realistic and entirely possible solutions (like beheading the King and building a democratic state, or stopping segregation, or extending the vote to women, or adding labor protections, or welfare, and so on), that they felt were beneath them, because they were demanded by the populace and went against their interests as a class? Every modern right has been established by struggles, parties, mass revolts, and so on, deemed "populist", "vulgar", "irresponsible", and "destructive" at the time by those opposing them. Every single one of them.

pytester 8y ago
Exactly. Margaret Thatcher epitomized this with her famous catchphrase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative The politburo in the Soviet Union probably employed a similar style of propaganda.
pas 8y ago
Pretty big difference between deemed populist by the king and deemed populist by the middle class, by secular opposition to that populism, and so on. That said, you are right, the struggle is real. But it's likely not the 10%, but probably less or a lot more, depending on how you view people who benefit from the status quo. For example anyone who buys a new car, plans a trip, ponders over a job offer, submits an offer on a tender has options to try to rock the boat. Greener, more fair, more just options are usually there - but of course those usually also require some kind of trade off. Do we want something that's good on the long term, or something that's good on the short term? And based on how many options people have and how little they value the long term, the global perspective we could classify them into different kinds of beneficiaries of the status quo. And it's enough for a small cabal of cooperating power brokers to benefit themselves to and unimaginably huge degree. As in significant portion of the world's "income" goes to people who had the option to enrich themselves and took it. Sure, this can be complicated further by looking at those who enriched themselves then proceeded to spend those riches on goals that ultimately help others - but these deviations are usually small, and again, ultimately, can be factored in. However, sometimes beheading kings is contraproductive as you get a civil war. Similarly just adding more voters does not magically lead to a fairer outcome. The classic example is adding more and more cannibals will eventually lead to a bit of a pickle.

AQuantized 8y ago

It relates to economic models insofar as said models are used to justify the persistence of certain inequalities in society. The existence of these inequalities can then be exploited by populists in their rhetoric.

geezerjay 8y ago
> It relates to economic models insofar as said models are used to justify the persistence of certain inequalities in society. Not quite. Models only explain relationships between parameters. Moreover, inequality is a meaningless concept that is the posterchild of how the goalpost is kept moving by populist politicians. It's meaningless in its definition, as it is kept very maleable to fit the argument, and it's meaningless in the conclusion, as there is no problem in having someome earning more than his neighbor.

bigbaguette 8y ago

Thing is populists tactics wouldn't get as much traction if the prejudice was not as bad, or worsening in the first place. Populism starts as a natural consequence of misery and lack of education, then becomes a cause that keeps reinforcing itself until the guillotine moment. Solving the populism issue means tackling the root issues it feeds from first.

geezerjay 8y ago
> Thing is populists tactics wouldn't get as much traction if the prejudice was not as bad, or worsening in the first place. The problem is that prejudice is also invented and disseminated by these unscrupulous politicians with their populist rhetoric. We see that in any extreme cormer of the political spectrum, whether its anti-capitalist socialists or racial supremacists. History is packed with examples where totalitarian regimes outright negate science to push their absurd populist rhetoric.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Which of the anti-capitalist socialist, racial supremacists, or totalitarians are responsible for the recent drops in life expectancy in the US, out of curiosity? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-life-expectancy-drops-third-year-row-reflecting-rising-drug-overdose-suicide-rates-180970942/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-life-expectancy...

chibg10 8y ago

This is all true. I would also add to this as a cause the trend of media outlets publishing a larger proportion of populist and outrage -driven content than they used to, which I suspect is a reaction to the new attention-driven business models that news outlets rely on these days.