4 ms·

I think you can be biased but also non-partisan. Partisan is usually referred to in terms of being an the side of a particular party. The Economist definitely h

I think you can be biased but also non-partisan. Partisan is usually referred to in terms of being an the side of a particular party. The Economist definitely has its bias, but that doesn't align clearly with either the right or the left in American politics.

clairity 6y ago
democrat, republican and green are parties, not right and left, which represent an arbitrary dichotomization of a complex landscape otherwise irreducible without losing critical information. that kind of reductionism, i daresay, never leads to meaningful understanding, just loggerheads. the economist takes a conventional stance of promoting policies that favor the already wealthy. that facet of it is rather banal and certainly not where the exciting ideas for the next millennia are going to emerge from.
- loughnane 6y ago
  It’s good point: right and left aren’t parties. Unfortunately it’s increasingly feeling that way in America; Independents (among which I count myself) don’t play a meaningful role and polarization as measured by congressional voting patterns seems to be the highest it’s been in decades. I think it’s unfair to say they support policies that favor the already wealthy. Certainly they do sometimes, but they’ve opposed tax cuts, supported minimum wage increases, etc. I’m ready to be proven wrong but I haven’t got that impression when I read it.
  - clairity 6y ago
    > "I think it’s unfair to say they support policies that favor the already wealthy." it's not unfair to call a spade a spade. opposing tax cuts can be done for a myriad of supportive or unsupportive reasons, so that doesn't provide a useful counter-argument. and "minimum wage increases" sounds great on the surface. but the underlying purpose of a minimum wage is to paper over gross systemic equities that have only grown over time and keep us from even discussing policies for creating more fair and dynamic markets that would naturally distribute wealth more widely and efficiently, and neatly obviate such a distortion-producing bandaid of a policy. but the central point is that no significant party and nearly no politician is addressing systemic issues that has promoted winner-take-all dynamics in our politicoeconomy for at least the last 50 years. even obamacare was so browbeaten and laden with special interest provisions, our healthcare costs have only soared, all to append zeroes onto bank accounts that abosolutely don't need, and more pointedly don't deserve, them.
    - astrange 6y ago
      > and "minimum wage increases" sounds great on the surface. but the underlying purpose of a minimum wage is to paper over gross systemic equities that have only grown over time and keep us from even discussing policies for creating more fair and dynamic markets that would naturally distribute wealth more widely and efficiently, and neatly obviate such a distortion-producing bandaid of a policy. This is a made up problem that came from economists high on their own models. Empirical evidence shows that minimum wage increases in the US have almost none of the distorting effects they would supposedly have. The response from economists has been to make up new models that show it's okay actually, up to ~60% of median wage. Some countries like the Nordics have high incomes despite no minimum wage (they have sectoral bargaining unions instead) but they should probably get one since it increases productivity a little. And Australia's federal minimum wage is still higher than any locality in the US and yet causes no problems.
      - jeegsy 6y ago
        > Empirical evidence shows I imagine there is 'evidence' out there but the empirical claim is quite intriguing. Do you have any sources for this?
        astrange 6y ago
        Some literature review here: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-15-minimum-wage-is-pretty-safe https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-15-minimum-wage-is-pre... https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-minimum-wage-pushback https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-minimum-wage-pushback One thing that might disappoint people is that increasing minimum wage isn't the best way to reduce poverty in the US, for the simple reason that most poor people aren't wage laborers. And not unemployed either - they're children and the elderly. Child allowances seem like they'll be very effective here, unless you don't trust their parents to use it well.
      - clairity 6y ago
        the amount of distortion is debatable and context-sensitive, but that's beside the point, and illustrative of the exact diversion i'm denominating. the problem is one of wealth and income distribution, particularly what happens as the shape of the distibution skews unnaturally toward the top and the powerful incentives to skew it that way. trying to shore up the tiny low end of that distribution (i.e., via minimum wage) is like throwing pebbles on the beach and hoping to fortify against the ocean. it's useless if the stated purpose of stemming the tide actually coincides with the underlying intent. (also note that modeling is an assertion of perspective and values, not an empirically objective experimental apparatus in itself. you cannot find truth simply by modeling, as plato's allegory of the cave alludes.)

clairity 6y ago

democrat, republican and green are parties, not right and left, which represent an arbitrary dichotomization of a complex landscape otherwise irreducible without losing critical information. that kind of reductionism, i daresay, never leads to meaningful understanding, just loggerheads. the economist takes a conventional stance of promoting policies that favor the already wealthy. that facet of it is rather banal and certainly not where the exciting ideas for the next millennia are going to emerge from.

loughnane 6y ago
It’s good point: right and left aren’t parties. Unfortunately it’s increasingly feeling that way in America; Independents (among which I count myself) don’t play a meaningful role and polarization as measured by congressional voting patterns seems to be the highest it’s been in decades. I think it’s unfair to say they support policies that favor the already wealthy. Certainly they do sometimes, but they’ve opposed tax cuts, supported minimum wage increases, etc. I’m ready to be proven wrong but I haven’t got that impression when I read it.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "I think it’s unfair to say they support policies that favor the already wealthy." it's not unfair to call a spade a spade. opposing tax cuts can be done for a myriad of supportive or unsupportive reasons, so that doesn't provide a useful counter-argument. and "minimum wage increases" sounds great on the surface. but the underlying purpose of a minimum wage is to paper over gross systemic equities that have only grown over time and keep us from even discussing policies for creating more fair and dynamic markets that would naturally distribute wealth more widely and efficiently, and neatly obviate such a distortion-producing bandaid of a policy. but the central point is that no significant party and nearly no politician is addressing systemic issues that has promoted winner-take-all dynamics in our politicoeconomy for at least the last 50 years. even obamacare was so browbeaten and laden with special interest provisions, our healthcare costs have only soared, all to append zeroes onto bank accounts that abosolutely don't need, and more pointedly don't deserve, them.
  - astrange 6y ago
    > and "minimum wage increases" sounds great on the surface. but the underlying purpose of a minimum wage is to paper over gross systemic equities that have only grown over time and keep us from even discussing policies for creating more fair and dynamic markets that would naturally distribute wealth more widely and efficiently, and neatly obviate such a distortion-producing bandaid of a policy. This is a made up problem that came from economists high on their own models. Empirical evidence shows that minimum wage increases in the US have almost none of the distorting effects they would supposedly have. The response from economists has been to make up new models that show it's okay actually, up to ~60% of median wage. Some countries like the Nordics have high incomes despite no minimum wage (they have sectoral bargaining unions instead) but they should probably get one since it increases productivity a little. And Australia's federal minimum wage is still higher than any locality in the US and yet causes no problems.
    - jeegsy 6y ago
      > Empirical evidence shows I imagine there is 'evidence' out there but the empirical claim is quite intriguing. Do you have any sources for this?
      - astrange 6y ago
        Some literature review here: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-15-minimum-wage-is-pretty-safe https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-15-minimum-wage-is-pre... https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-minimum-wage-pushback https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-minimum-wage-pushback One thing that might disappoint people is that increasing minimum wage isn't the best way to reduce poverty in the US, for the simple reason that most poor people aren't wage laborers. And not unemployed either - they're children and the elderly. Child allowances seem like they'll be very effective here, unless you don't trust their parents to use it well.
    - clairity 6y ago
      the amount of distortion is debatable and context-sensitive, but that's beside the point, and illustrative of the exact diversion i'm denominating. the problem is one of wealth and income distribution, particularly what happens as the shape of the distibution skews unnaturally toward the top and the powerful incentives to skew it that way. trying to shore up the tiny low end of that distribution (i.e., via minimum wage) is like throwing pebbles on the beach and hoping to fortify against the ocean. it's useless if the stated purpose of stemming the tide actually coincides with the underlying intent. (also note that modeling is an assertion of perspective and values, not an empirically objective experimental apparatus in itself. you cannot find truth simply by modeling, as plato's allegory of the cave alludes.)