4 ms·

> The New Deal political coalition I have a hard time seeing the discontinuity between the New Deal people you're referencing and the 1960s Great Society ones

> The New Deal political coalition I have a hard time seeing the discontinuity between the New Deal people you're referencing and the 1960s Great Society ones that pretty much iterated on the same themes of the scientific management of society through monolithic institutions with expansive powers. It's pretty much relentless hubris with little to show and much to answer for.

xxpor 6y ago
Given china's rise, it would seem the argument is that scientific management with expansive powers in the western world didn't actually go far enough.
- dnautics 6y ago
  So if china suddenly collapses in the next couple of years will you retract your hypothesis?
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    If china suddenly grew legs and walked away, I'd rethink what I knew about animal life - but why deal in this particular counterfactual?
    - dnautics 6y ago
      it's not. China is looking at a demographic collapse in the next few years that upends their running economic model and makes any future projections based on past history suspect. One of the ways out of demographic collapse is immigration, but somehow I don't see China's equivalent of US's Mexico/LatAM coming out of the global geopolitical woodwork. Immigration is simply not in China's DNA. Outside of immigration, no amount of "scientific management" or "good policy" will make 18-30 year-olds appear magically over the course of 5-10 years. Unless my understanding of biology is wrong and dolphins could sprout legs and walk on land, usually it takes 18-30 years. I'm willing to change my mind. What sort of an ace in its hole does china have to change this situation?
      - refenestrator 6y ago
        What does demographic collapse mean, specifically? The one child policy is 40 years old, China has been 4-2-1 for like 20 years at least, and no collapse has happened. Now they're allowing 2 children. What's the specific thing that will collapse and be bad? An oversized retiree generation dying just frees up pension cash.
        dnautics 6y ago
        The specific thing that will collapse is the economy. When people retire there is a sudden shift from investment to liquidation. That's a driving factor for popping asset bubbles, and china is currently one huge asset bubble. Like it or not (i personally dont), we are also living in a world where the central planners rely on consumption-driven economics, and there just isn't a chinese consumer market anymore due to demographics.
        refenestrator 6y ago
        The multi-child family people are already retired, though, and long-retired at that. Them dying out means a shrinking population but also lower pension costs with no lost labor. The working population has been steady-state at 1-child for 40 years followed by 2-child for the last few years. I suppose there could be some demand loss due to fewer people demanding things, but.. there's a lot of room for additional demand in China. Plenty of people where running water is a last-20-years nice new thing.
- shanusmagnus 6y ago
  Depends on the outcome you're looking for, I guess. From a sheer "managing the macro architecture of civilization" perspective it's hard to argue -- the speed with which China can do substantial things is staggering. They trade that off for individual liberties, presumably. Which makes one wonder if the liberties we enjoy are worth the bargain, on net. Or perhaps the question boils down to whether "on net" is the right objective function.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    Both the New Deal and the Chinese system accelerated electrification and running water in rural areas by decades. There's a lot of "quality of life" there that gets missed when people zoom all the way out and talk about state involvement, GDP and freedom.
    - donovanian 6y ago
      > There's a lot of "quality of life" there I guess you'd have to ignore what Deidre McCloskey describes as the Great Enrichment of liberal democracies: "[...] a rise in real wages 1800 to the present by a factor of 10 or 30 or (allowing for improved quality of goods) 100, which is to say 900 or 2,900 or 9,900 percent" [1] Meanwhile there's a certain propensity for incredible inhumanity, eugenics (in the case of the 1920s Progressive movement) and the outright abuse and "reeducation" of minority races in China. [1]: http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/docs/pdf/IndiaPaperMcCloskey.pdf http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/docs/pdf/IndiaPaperMcCloskey...
      - refenestrator 6y ago
        "1800 to present" is very much inclusive of the New Deal.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

xxpor 6y ago

Given china's rise, it would seem the argument is that scientific management with expansive powers in the western world didn't actually go far enough.

dnautics 6y ago
So if china suddenly collapses in the next couple of years will you retract your hypothesis?
- pessimizer 6y ago
  If china suddenly grew legs and walked away, I'd rethink what I knew about animal life - but why deal in this particular counterfactual?
  - dnautics 6y ago
    it's not. China is looking at a demographic collapse in the next few years that upends their running economic model and makes any future projections based on past history suspect. One of the ways out of demographic collapse is immigration, but somehow I don't see China's equivalent of US's Mexico/LatAM coming out of the global geopolitical woodwork. Immigration is simply not in China's DNA. Outside of immigration, no amount of "scientific management" or "good policy" will make 18-30 year-olds appear magically over the course of 5-10 years. Unless my understanding of biology is wrong and dolphins could sprout legs and walk on land, usually it takes 18-30 years. I'm willing to change my mind. What sort of an ace in its hole does china have to change this situation?
    - refenestrator 6y ago
      What does demographic collapse mean, specifically? The one child policy is 40 years old, China has been 4-2-1 for like 20 years at least, and no collapse has happened. Now they're allowing 2 children. What's the specific thing that will collapse and be bad? An oversized retiree generation dying just frees up pension cash.
      - dnautics 6y ago
        The specific thing that will collapse is the economy. When people retire there is a sudden shift from investment to liquidation. That's a driving factor for popping asset bubbles, and china is currently one huge asset bubble. Like it or not (i personally dont), we are also living in a world where the central planners rely on consumption-driven economics, and there just isn't a chinese consumer market anymore due to demographics.
        refenestrator 6y ago
        The multi-child family people are already retired, though, and long-retired at that. Them dying out means a shrinking population but also lower pension costs with no lost labor. The working population has been steady-state at 1-child for 40 years followed by 2-child for the last few years. I suppose there could be some demand loss due to fewer people demanding things, but.. there's a lot of room for additional demand in China. Plenty of people where running water is a last-20-years nice new thing.
shanusmagnus 6y ago
Depends on the outcome you're looking for, I guess. From a sheer "managing the macro architecture of civilization" perspective it's hard to argue -- the speed with which China can do substantial things is staggering. They trade that off for individual liberties, presumably. Which makes one wonder if the liberties we enjoy are worth the bargain, on net. Or perhaps the question boils down to whether "on net" is the right objective function.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- refenestrator 6y ago
  Both the New Deal and the Chinese system accelerated electrification and running water in rural areas by decades. There's a lot of "quality of life" there that gets missed when people zoom all the way out and talk about state involvement, GDP and freedom.
  - donovanian 6y ago
    > There's a lot of "quality of life" there I guess you'd have to ignore what Deidre McCloskey describes as the Great Enrichment of liberal democracies: "[...] a rise in real wages 1800 to the present by a factor of 10 or 30 or (allowing for improved quality of goods) 100, which is to say 900 or 2,900 or 9,900 percent" [1] Meanwhile there's a certain propensity for incredible inhumanity, eugenics (in the case of the 1920s Progressive movement) and the outright abuse and "reeducation" of minority races in China. [1]: http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/docs/pdf/IndiaPaperMcCloskey.pdf http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/docs/pdf/IndiaPaperMcCloskey...
    - refenestrator 6y ago
      "1800 to present" is very much inclusive of the New Deal.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]